<?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 (10) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86173</link>
    <description>Modvat credit validly taken and utilised on inputs did not have to be reversed merely because the finished product later became exempt after the credit had already been used. The scheme allowed immediate taking and utilisation of credit, and recovery was confined to cases specifically covered by the Modvat Rules. Rule 57C applied where the finished product was exempt at the relevant time, while Rule 57F addressed limited recoveries relating to inputs in stock. As there was no specific provision authorising recovery of credit attributable to inputs contained in finished goods already in stock, the subsequent exemption did not justify reversal. The demand against the assessee therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:09:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86173</link>
      <description>Modvat credit validly taken and utilised on inputs did not have to be reversed merely because the finished product later became exempt after the credit had already been used. The scheme allowed immediate taking and utilisation of credit, and recovery was confined to cases specifically covered by the Modvat Rules. Rule 57C applied where the finished product was exempt at the relevant time, while Rule 57F addressed limited recoveries relating to inputs in stock. As there was no specific provision authorising recovery of credit attributable to inputs contained in finished goods already in stock, the subsequent exemption did not justify reversal. The demand against the assessee therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>