<?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 (7) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90779</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on capital goods could not be finally denied where the completeness and sequence of the declaration were uncertain and required factual verification. The text notes that, even if the first declaration was insufficient, the later declaration described the goods and the request for condonation of delay under Rule 57T had to be examined on merits, since the Assistant Commissioner could condone delay up to three months for sufficient reasons. Because part of the goods had been received within the relevant period and the declaration issue depended on factual scrutiny, the matter was remitted for fresh decision after considering condonation of delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:48:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90779</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on capital goods could not be finally denied where the completeness and sequence of the declaration were uncertain and required factual verification. The text notes that, even if the first declaration was insufficient, the later declaration described the goods and the request for condonation of delay under Rule 57T had to be examined on merits, since the Assistant Commissioner could condone delay up to three months for sufficient reasons. Because part of the goods had been received within the relevant period and the declaration issue depended on factual scrutiny, the matter was remitted for fresh decision after considering condonation of delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>