<?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 (4) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90953</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on inputs was held admissible where final products were cleared without payment of duty for export under bond. Clearance for export under bond was not treated as the kind of exemption that attracts the bar in Rule 57C, so the credit could not be denied merely because duty was not paid at the time of clearance. On that basis, the demand raised under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:41:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90953</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on inputs was held admissible where final products were cleared without payment of duty for export under bond. Clearance for export under bond was not treated as the kind of exemption that attracts the bar in Rule 57C, so the credit could not be denied merely because duty was not paid at the time of clearance. On that basis, the demand raised under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>