<?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 249 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89721</link>
    <description>Disclosure of Modvat credit through statutory returns and supporting duty-paying documents, together with departmental audit or record verification showing awareness of the practice, defeats an allegation of suppression. On those facts, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny credit, because the department had material to know the basis on which credit was being taken. The denial of Modvat credit on that ground was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:32:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 249 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89721</link>
      <description>Disclosure of Modvat credit through statutory returns and supporting duty-paying documents, together with departmental audit or record verification showing awareness of the practice, defeats an allegation of suppression. On those facts, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny credit, because the department had material to know the basis on which credit was being taken. The denial of Modvat credit on that ground was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>