<?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 (10) TMI 152 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92295</link>
    <description>A larger Bench decision prevails over an earlier smaller Bench decision even if the larger Bench majority is not numerically greater than the smaller Bench strength. The note also records that refractory materials used by the assessee were already treated by a High Court as qualifying inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A, so no further reference on the exclusion clause was considered necessary. On that basis, the reference application failed and the matter was disposed of without further reference on either issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 152 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92295</link>
      <description>A larger Bench decision prevails over an earlier smaller Bench decision even if the larger Bench majority is not numerically greater than the smaller Bench strength. The note also records that refractory materials used by the assessee were already treated by a High Court as qualifying inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A, so no further reference on the exclusion clause was considered necessary. On that basis, the reference application failed and the matter was disposed of without further reference on either issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>