<?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 (11) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90426</link>
    <description>The Tribunal treated the admissibility of Modvat credit as a contentious issue and considered that the authorities had relied on a period after the relevant change requiring the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry as a prescribed document. It also took account of the appellant&#039;s financial loss shown in the balance sheet and the overall facts, circumstances and cited case law in assessing undue hardship. Full waiver of pre-deposit was refused, but a reduced deposit of Rs. 2 lakh was ordered, the amount already deposited under the detention order was allowed to be adjusted, the detention order was set aside, and recovery of the balance duty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:59:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90426</link>
      <description>The Tribunal treated the admissibility of Modvat credit as a contentious issue and considered that the authorities had relied on a period after the relevant change requiring the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry as a prescribed document. It also took account of the appellant&#039;s financial loss shown in the balance sheet and the overall facts, circumstances and cited case law in assessing undue hardship. Full waiver of pre-deposit was refused, but a reduced deposit of Rs. 2 lakh was ordered, the amount already deposited under the detention order was allowed to be adjusted, the detention order was set aside, and recovery of the balance duty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>