<?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 (1) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91598</link>
    <description>Declarations for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q were treated as timely where they were filed while the factory was still being established and the legal position was unclear. Registration under the excise framework was linked to commencement of manufacturing activity, and the Tribunal applied its earlier view that, in such a grey area, denying credit would be unjust. The declaration was therefore not treated as delayed, and the assessee was held entitled to the Rule 57Q benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:10:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91598</link>
      <description>Declarations for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q were treated as timely where they were filed while the factory was still being established and the legal position was unclear. Registration under the excise framework was linked to commencement of manufacturing activity, and the Tribunal applied its earlier view that, in such a grey area, denying credit would be unjust. The declaration was therefore not treated as delayed, and the assessee was held entitled to the Rule 57Q benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>