<?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>1997 (5) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86945</link>
    <description>Credit taken on 28-2-1986 under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. was treated as allowable because the notification operated as a self-contained scheme with its own procedure. The Tribunal noted that the Schedule to Rule 56A applied only where credit was claimed under Rule 56A itself or under a notification incorporating that procedure. Rescission of the notification did not extinguish credit already accrued for utilisation, and the later insertion of Rule 56A(8) did not justify denial of credit on the facts considered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:32:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86945</link>
      <description>Credit taken on 28-2-1986 under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. was treated as allowable because the notification operated as a self-contained scheme with its own procedure. The Tribunal noted that the Schedule to Rule 56A applied only where credit was claimed under Rule 56A itself or under a notification incorporating that procedure. Rescission of the notification did not extinguish credit already accrued for utilisation, and the later insertion of Rule 56A(8) did not justify denial of credit on the facts considered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>