<?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 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82553</link>
    <description>Enhanced deemed credit under the revised MODVAT order was confined to inputs in stock on or after the specified date where credit had not already been availed. Because credit on the same inputs had earlier been taken and utilised, the second proviso to Rule 57G(2) and the revised order barred retrospective application of the higher rate. The claim for additional deemed credit was therefore rejected, and the lower authorities&#039; order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:15:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82553</link>
      <description>Enhanced deemed credit under the revised MODVAT order was confined to inputs in stock on or after the specified date where credit had not already been availed. Because credit on the same inputs had earlier been taken and utilised, the second proviso to Rule 57G(2) and the revised order barred retrospective application of the higher rate. The claim for additional deemed credit was therefore rejected, and the lower authorities&#039; order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>