<?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 (10) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83748</link>
    <description>An enhancing Modvat credit notification under Rule 57K does not permit retrospective addition of differential credit to indigenous rice bran oil already lying in factory stock on the notification date. The scheme distinguishes between taking credit on receipt of eligible inputs and utilising that credit when the inputs are used in manufacture; a later enhancement in the credit rate governs future utilisation, not revision of credit already taken. The decision cited on subsequently paid differential duty was held inapplicable because no later duty payment on the inputs was involved. Differential credit on the closing stock was therefore not admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:48:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83748</link>
      <description>An enhancing Modvat credit notification under Rule 57K does not permit retrospective addition of differential credit to indigenous rice bran oil already lying in factory stock on the notification date. The scheme distinguishes between taking credit on receipt of eligible inputs and utilising that credit when the inputs are used in manufacture; a later enhancement in the credit rate governs future utilisation, not revision of credit already taken. The decision cited on subsequently paid differential duty was held inapplicable because no later duty payment on the inputs was involved. Differential credit on the closing stock was therefore not admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>