<?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 (9) TMI 181 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82060</link>
    <description>Re-entry into the MODVAT scheme did not require a fresh declaration where an earlier declaration already covered the inputs and there was no change in inputs, manufacturing setup, ownership, or other material facts; the later classification list intimating availment of MODVAT credit was treated as sufficient. The demand for recovery of credit and the penalty were also held time-barred because the department had been informed through the classification list and covering letter, the list had been approved, and no suppression was shown. In these circumstances, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:34:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 181 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82060</link>
      <description>Re-entry into the MODVAT scheme did not require a fresh declaration where an earlier declaration already covered the inputs and there was no change in inputs, manufacturing setup, ownership, or other material facts; the later classification list intimating availment of MODVAT credit was treated as sufficient. The demand for recovery of credit and the penalty were also held time-barred because the department had been informed through the classification list and covering letter, the list had been approved, and no suppression was shown. In these circumstances, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>