<?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>1994 (2) TMI 182 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83475</link>
    <description>Special excise duty was held not to fall within the duty structure covered by the relevant exemption and credit notifications because it is sourced from the Finance Act and is outside the scheme of duty referred to in Section 3 of the Central Excises &amp; Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, higher notional MODVAT credit was not available under Notification No. 175/86, as amended by Notification No. 136/88, and the claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:16:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120620" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (2) TMI 182 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83475</link>
      <description>Special excise duty was held not to fall within the duty structure covered by the relevant exemption and credit notifications because it is sourced from the Finance Act and is outside the scheme of duty referred to in Section 3 of the Central Excises &amp; Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, higher notional MODVAT credit was not available under Notification No. 175/86, as amended by Notification No. 136/88, and the claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>