<?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>2010 (3) TMI 540 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78439</link>
    <description>Accumulated deemed credit recorded in the assessee&#039;s books did not lapse on introduction of the Compounded Levy Scheme because no provision in the Act, Rules, notification or circular expressly provided for such extinguishment. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld on the basis that the Revenue could not identify any legal authority supporting automatic lapse of unutilised credit, and the High Court found no legal infirmity in that reasoning. As no substantial question of law arose, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:35:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 540 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78439</link>
      <description>Accumulated deemed credit recorded in the assessee&#039;s books did not lapse on introduction of the Compounded Levy Scheme because no provision in the Act, Rules, notification or circular expressly provided for such extinguishment. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld on the basis that the Revenue could not identify any legal authority supporting automatic lapse of unutilised credit, and the High Court found no legal infirmity in that reasoning. As no substantial question of law arose, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>