<?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 (4) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88451</link>
    <description>Money credit on ethyl alcohol accrued on receipt of the goods, and State Excise gate passes showed receipt before 1-4-1994. The rescission of the money credit notification from that date did not extinguish credit already earned, because withdrawal of the scheme barred only fresh accrual after the cut-off date. On that basis, duty demand and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(PP) were not sustainable, and the credit was treated as validly availed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:14:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88451</link>
      <description>Money credit on ethyl alcohol accrued on receipt of the goods, and State Excise gate passes showed receipt before 1-4-1994. The rescission of the money credit notification from that date did not extinguish credit already earned, because withdrawal of the scheme barred only fresh accrual after the cut-off date. On that basis, duty demand and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(PP) were not sustainable, and the credit was treated as validly availed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>