<?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>1999 (1) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90841</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on beta naphthol was confined to the duty actually payable and paid on the input. Where the input had already obtained set-off under Notification No. 432/86, only the reduced duty element remained available for credit under Rule 57A read with Notification No. 177/86. Credit taken on the exempted portion could not be treated as credit of duty paid on inputs and was therefore inadmissible. The Tribunal accordingly upheld denial of Modvat credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:37:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90841</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on beta naphthol was confined to the duty actually payable and paid on the input. Where the input had already obtained set-off under Notification No. 432/86, only the reduced duty element remained available for credit under Rule 57A read with Notification No. 177/86. Credit taken on the exempted portion could not be treated as credit of duty paid on inputs and was therefore inadmissible. The Tribunal accordingly upheld denial of Modvat credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>