<?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 (3) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88565</link>
    <description>Conflicting Tribunal views on Modvat credit for wires and cables as capital goods under Rule 57Q gave rise to a question of law fit for reference. The pendency of a similar issue before a Larger Bench did not extinguish the applicant&#039;s statutory right to seek reference of the present questions to the High Court. The reference application was therefore allowed and the questions of law were referred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:50:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88565</link>
      <description>Conflicting Tribunal views on Modvat credit for wires and cables as capital goods under Rule 57Q gave rise to a question of law fit for reference. The pendency of a similar issue before a Larger Bench did not extinguish the applicant&#039;s statutory right to seek reference of the present questions to the High Court. The reference application was therefore allowed and the questions of law were referred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>