<?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 (7) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84822</link>
    <description>Rule 57H allowed credit on duty-paid inputs received immediately before the dated acknowledgement of the declaration if either the inputs were in stock or received in the factory on or after 1-3-1987, or they were used in the manufacture of final products cleared on or after 1-3-1987. These conditions were treated as alternative, not cumulative, and the rule was not read as imposing an additional requirement that the inputs had to be available for verification. The objection that the alternative condition was not established was also rejected because it had not been raised earlier. Credit was therefore admissible on the facts found, and no referable question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:15:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84822</link>
      <description>Rule 57H allowed credit on duty-paid inputs received immediately before the dated acknowledgement of the declaration if either the inputs were in stock or received in the factory on or after 1-3-1987, or they were used in the manufacture of final products cleared on or after 1-3-1987. These conditions were treated as alternative, not cumulative, and the rule was not read as imposing an additional requirement that the inputs had to be available for verification. The objection that the alternative condition was not established was also rejected because it had not been raised earlier. Credit was therefore admissible on the facts found, and no referable question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>