<?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 (9) TMI 379 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86011</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit was unavailable where iron and steel inputs were purchased from the open market but were covered by an exemption notification and lacked prescribed duty-paying documents. Rule 57G(2) required receipt of inputs under documents evidencing payment of duty, and the deemed credit order itself excluded inputs recognisable as non-duty paid or charged to nil rate of duty. Since the goods fell under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., their exempt character remained unchanged by market purchase, and the larger Bench ruling on the same notification supported the exception. Deemed credit was therefore not admissible, and the Revenue succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:02:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 379 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86011</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit was unavailable where iron and steel inputs were purchased from the open market but were covered by an exemption notification and lacked prescribed duty-paying documents. Rule 57G(2) required receipt of inputs under documents evidencing payment of duty, and the deemed credit order itself excluded inputs recognisable as non-duty paid or charged to nil rate of duty. Since the goods fell under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., their exempt character remained unchanged by market purchase, and the larger Bench ruling on the same notification supported the exception. Deemed credit was therefore not admissible, and the Revenue succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>