<?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>2000 (9) TMI 374 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94099</link>
    <description>Modvat credit of additional duty of customs was held not to be deniable merely because it was availed partly in one factory and partly in another, where the bill of entry stood in the name of the importer&#039;s registered office and the combined credit did not exceed the duty actually paid. Applying its earlier decision on identical facts, the Tribunal treated the split utilisation as permissible and rejected denial on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:15:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 374 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94099</link>
      <description>Modvat credit of additional duty of customs was held not to be deniable merely because it was availed partly in one factory and partly in another, where the bill of entry stood in the name of the importer&#039;s registered office and the combined credit did not exceed the duty actually paid. Applying its earlier decision on identical facts, the Tribunal treated the split utilisation as permissible and rejected denial on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>