<?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 (6) TMI 127 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84811</link>
    <description>A prior MODVAT declaration does not continue to operate after an assessee voluntarily exits the scheme and later seeks to re-enter it; a fresh declaration under Rule 57G is required before credit can be claimed again, so credit from the date of re-entry was denied. The procedural requirement enables the department to verify inputs and eligibility, and non-compliance defeats the credit claim. On penalty, failure to file returns and maintain records justified imposition, but the quantum could be moderated having regard to the assessee&#039;s small-scale status and surrounding circumstances, so the penalty was reduced on equitable considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:55:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (6) TMI 127 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84811</link>
      <description>A prior MODVAT declaration does not continue to operate after an assessee voluntarily exits the scheme and later seeks to re-enter it; a fresh declaration under Rule 57G is required before credit can be claimed again, so credit from the date of re-entry was denied. The procedural requirement enables the department to verify inputs and eligibility, and non-compliance defeats the credit claim. On penalty, failure to file returns and maintain records justified imposition, but the quantum could be moderated having regard to the assessee&#039;s small-scale status and surrounding circumstances, so the penalty was reduced on equitable considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>