<?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 (4) TMI 322 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85876</link>
    <description>The document concerns whether, for the period before 6 October 1988, Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was subject to the six-month limitation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or whether Rule 57-I operated independently to allow recovery of wrongly taken Modvat credit beyond that period. The matter was not finally decided in the text; the question was referred to the High Court for determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:46:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 322 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85876</link>
      <description>The document concerns whether, for the period before 6 October 1988, Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was subject to the six-month limitation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or whether Rule 57-I operated independently to allow recovery of wrongly taken Modvat credit beyond that period. The matter was not finally decided in the text; the question was referred to the High Court for determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>