<?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>1995 (1) TMI 196 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84080</link>
    <description>Where proforma credit entitlement on disputed inputs was finally determined in favour of the assessee, the credit had to be treated as constructively lying in balance before filing the MODVAT declaration. The departmental objection that no balance existed was rejected because the credit would have been available but for the pending dispute. Accordingly, transitional credit under Rule 57H(3) was available and transfer of the credit to the MODVAT account was permissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:36:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 196 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84080</link>
      <description>Where proforma credit entitlement on disputed inputs was finally determined in favour of the assessee, the credit had to be treated as constructively lying in balance before filing the MODVAT declaration. The departmental objection that no balance existed was rejected because the credit would have been available but for the pending dispute. Accordingly, transitional credit under Rule 57H(3) was available and transfer of the credit to the MODVAT account was permissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>