<?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 210 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84984</link>
    <description>Rule 57-O of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a manufacturer seeking credit under the money credit scheme to file a declaration and obtain acknowledgement before taking credit. A declaration filed under an earlier notification did not suffice once that notification was rescinded and a fresh notification was later invoked. The statutory declaration requirement continued to apply, even if the new notification did not repeat it expressly. Accordingly, fresh compliance with the rule was necessary before benefit of Notification No. 45/89-C.E. could be availed, and credit taken without such declaration was not admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:45:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 210 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84984</link>
      <description>Rule 57-O of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a manufacturer seeking credit under the money credit scheme to file a declaration and obtain acknowledgement before taking credit. A declaration filed under an earlier notification did not suffice once that notification was rescinded and a fresh notification was later invoked. The statutory declaration requirement continued to apply, even if the new notification did not repeat it expressly. Accordingly, fresh compliance with the rule was necessary before benefit of Notification No. 45/89-C.E. could be availed, and credit taken without such declaration was not admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>