<?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 (9) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92249</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on inputs received from a 100% export-oriented unit was examined under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the proviso to Notification No. 177/86-C.E., which limited credit to duty equal to the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The competing views were whether credit must be confined to the additional duty actually paid on the inputs or whether the restriction applies to the notional additional duty element reflected in the duty paid by the export-oriented unit. Because conflicting Tribunal precedent existed on the same question, the matter was considered fit for determination by a Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:55:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92249</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on inputs received from a 100% export-oriented unit was examined under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the proviso to Notification No. 177/86-C.E., which limited credit to duty equal to the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The competing views were whether credit must be confined to the additional duty actually paid on the inputs or whether the restriction applies to the notional additional duty element reflected in the duty paid by the export-oriented unit. Because conflicting Tribunal precedent existed on the same question, the matter was considered fit for determination by a Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>