<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (7) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73205</link>
    <description>A demand for reversal of credit under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. was treated as recoverable only through Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, so limitation applied. The Tribunal&#039;s earlier view that erroneous availment or recovery of set-off under the notification falls within Section 11A was followed, and the demand could not be sustained as time-barred. On the notification&#039;s appendix, paragraph 3 applied only where duty on inputs was actually varied by refund or recovery from the input manufacturer; because no refund had in fact been granted, that condition was absent. The matter also did not fit paragraph 4 as an independently wrong initial availment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 12:31:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73205</link>
      <description>A demand for reversal of credit under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. was treated as recoverable only through Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, so limitation applied. The Tribunal&#039;s earlier view that erroneous availment or recovery of set-off under the notification falls within Section 11A was followed, and the demand could not be sustained as time-barred. On the notification&#039;s appendix, paragraph 3 applied only where duty on inputs was actually varied by refund or recovery from the input manufacturer; because no refund had in fact been granted, that condition was absent. The matter also did not fit paragraph 4 as an independently wrong initial availment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>