<?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>1996 (8) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85717</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was considered admissible on inputs received before the filing and acknowledgment of the Rule 57G declaration where the inputs remained in stock, were available for verification, and were first issued for manufacture only on the date of acknowledgment. Rule 57H was treated as covering both inputs lying in stock or received after declaration, and inputs already used in manufacture but cleared on or after the relevant date, subject to no prior credit having been taken under another rule or notification. The beneficial nature of the Modvat scheme, the short time gap, and the absence of mala fides supported admissibility, and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 17:07:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85717</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was considered admissible on inputs received before the filing and acknowledgment of the Rule 57G declaration where the inputs remained in stock, were available for verification, and were first issued for manufacture only on the date of acknowledgment. Rule 57H was treated as covering both inputs lying in stock or received after declaration, and inputs already used in manufacture but cleared on or after the relevant date, subject to no prior credit having been taken under another rule or notification. The beneficial nature of the Modvat scheme, the short time gap, and the absence of mala fides supported admissibility, and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>