<?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>1992 (5) TMI 120 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81891</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit under the pre-amendment Rule 57F(6) was confined to the factory in which it accrued, so unutilised credit could not be transferred to another unit after shifting. The Tribunal held that a later amendment allowing such transfer created a new facility affecting substantive rights and could not be treated as clarificatory or applied retrospectively in the absence of clear statutory language or necessary implication. The earlier authority cited was distinguished because it concerned a procedural matter, not the carry-forward of accumulated credit on relocation. The claim for transfer of credit was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:47:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 120 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81891</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit under the pre-amendment Rule 57F(6) was confined to the factory in which it accrued, so unutilised credit could not be transferred to another unit after shifting. The Tribunal held that a later amendment allowing such transfer created a new facility affecting substantive rights and could not be treated as clarificatory or applied retrospectively in the absence of clear statutory language or necessary implication. The earlier authority cited was distinguished because it concerned a procedural matter, not the carry-forward of accumulated credit on relocation. The claim for transfer of credit was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>