<?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 (6) TMI 215 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87780</link>
    <description>Credit accumulated under Notification No. 103/61 does not lapse merely because the notification is rescinded, if the underlying entitlement is later upheld. Where a dealer opts for Modvat after the scheme&#039;s introduction and the set-off claim is resolved only afterwards, the accumulated credit may be treated as lying in balance immediately before the relevant Modvat declaration. On that basis, the transitional facility under Rule 57H(3) permits transfer of the credit into the Modvat account, and prior Tribunal authority supporting transfer of balance credit was followed while the contrary precedent was distinguished on facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:43:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 215 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87780</link>
      <description>Credit accumulated under Notification No. 103/61 does not lapse merely because the notification is rescinded, if the underlying entitlement is later upheld. Where a dealer opts for Modvat after the scheme&#039;s introduction and the set-off claim is resolved only afterwards, the accumulated credit may be treated as lying in balance immediately before the relevant Modvat declaration. On that basis, the transitional facility under Rule 57H(3) permits transfer of the credit into the Modvat account, and prior Tribunal authority supporting transfer of balance credit was followed while the contrary precedent was distinguished on facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>