<?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 (5) TMI 160 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91419</link>
    <description>After amalgamation of the manufacturing unit, a fresh Modvat declaration was not required where the manufacturing process, inputs and finished products remained unchanged and the department already had the relevant particulars from the earlier declaration. The filing of another declaration was treated as a procedural formality, and obtaining a fresh excise licence after amalgamation did not alter that position. Credit was therefore validly taken, and the penalty for absence of a fresh declaration was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:10:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 160 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91419</link>
      <description>After amalgamation of the manufacturing unit, a fresh Modvat declaration was not required where the manufacturing process, inputs and finished products remained unchanged and the department already had the relevant particulars from the earlier declaration. The filing of another declaration was treated as a procedural formality, and obtaining a fresh excise licence after amalgamation did not alter that position. Credit was therefore validly taken, and the penalty for absence of a fresh declaration was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>