<?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 (10) TMI 194 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87743</link>
    <description>Later availment of higher notional Modvat credit under Rule 57B was not barred by any express or implied prohibition in the relevant provisions. The Tribunal treated the departmental reference under Section 35E as vague because it merely reframed the same issue without raising an arguable question of law. On that footing, no referable legal issue arose for consideration by the High Court, and the departmental reference was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:44:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 194 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87743</link>
      <description>Later availment of higher notional Modvat credit under Rule 57B was not barred by any express or implied prohibition in the relevant provisions. The Tribunal treated the departmental reference under Section 35E as vague because it merely reframed the same issue without raising an arguable question of law. On that footing, no referable legal issue arose for consideration by the High Court, and the departmental reference was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>