<?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 (5) TMI 120 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83517</link>
    <description>For Modvat credit under Rule 57G, the declaration must clearly identify the relevant inputs and final products; a broad tariff heading or generic product description is insufficient. Where the two items were not specifically declared, credit taken in respect of them was contrary to the statutory declaration requirement and was therefore not admissible. The ruling confirms that specific disclosure, not general classification, is necessary to claim credit on inputs and final products.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:23:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 120 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83517</link>
      <description>For Modvat credit under Rule 57G, the declaration must clearly identify the relevant inputs and final products; a broad tariff heading or generic product description is insufficient. Where the two items were not specifically declared, credit taken in respect of them was contrary to the statutory declaration requirement and was therefore not admissible. The ruling confirms that specific disclosure, not general classification, is necessary to claim credit on inputs and final products.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>