<?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 161 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82903</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on differential duty paid later on inputs raised conflicting views on whether Rule 57A independently permitted additional credit before amendment of Rule 57E. One view treated Rule 57E as the exclusive mechanism for varying credit and denied subsequent credit under the earlier rules; the opposing view considered the Rule 57E amendments clarificatory and allowed credit under Rule 57A. The related question was whether Rules 57A, 57E and 57G could be read independently where no credit was claimed when inputs were received. Owing to the divergence, the appeals were referred to a Larger Bench without a final decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:07:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 161 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82903</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on differential duty paid later on inputs raised conflicting views on whether Rule 57A independently permitted additional credit before amendment of Rule 57E. One view treated Rule 57E as the exclusive mechanism for varying credit and denied subsequent credit under the earlier rules; the opposing view considered the Rule 57E amendments clarificatory and allowed credit under Rule 57A. The related question was whether Rules 57A, 57E and 57G could be read independently where no credit was claimed when inputs were received. Owing to the divergence, the appeals were referred to a Larger Bench without a final decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>