<?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 (5) TMI 218 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91174</link>
    <description>Transitional Modvat credit under Rule 57H was admissible where the assessee had already filed the Rule 57G declaration and exercised the relevant option contemporaneously. The scheme was treated as beneficial in character, so the later deletion of the facility could not be applied to defeat an entitlement already in motion. The later restoration of the deleted portion of Rule 57H also supported the broader reading of the provision. The assessee&#039;s claim was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:30:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 218 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91174</link>
      <description>Transitional Modvat credit under Rule 57H was admissible where the assessee had already filed the Rule 57G declaration and exercised the relevant option contemporaneously. The scheme was treated as beneficial in character, so the later deletion of the facility could not be applied to defeat an entitlement already in motion. The later restoration of the deleted portion of Rule 57H also supported the broader reading of the provision. The assessee&#039;s claim was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>