<?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>1998 (2) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88323</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was denied on detergent cake because it was not an input used in manufacturing detergent powder, and the claim to treat it as an accessory was outside the scope of the dispute. A later notification extending credit to accessories did not apply to the earlier period, as amendments operate prospectively unless express retrospective effect is provided. The denial of credit was therefore sustained, with the demand only partly reduced to reflect allowance from 29-6-1995.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:14:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88323</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was denied on detergent cake because it was not an input used in manufacturing detergent powder, and the claim to treat it as an accessory was outside the scope of the dispute. A later notification extending credit to accessories did not apply to the earlier period, as amendments operate prospectively unless express retrospective effect is provided. The denial of credit was therefore sustained, with the demand only partly reduced to reflect allowance from 29-6-1995.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>