<?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 (4) TMI 405 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94861</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal in CALCUTTA ruled in favor of the respondents in a dispute over Modvat credit utilization following a change in the company&#039;s name and registration certificate. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that a change in the company&#039;s name does not impact its rights and obligations. Despite the Revenue&#039;s argument that the change in registration certificate signaled the cessation of the previous company, the Tribunal held that the Modvat credit earned under the old name remained valid. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal and disposed of the respondents&#039; cross objection accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:49:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 405 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94861</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal in CALCUTTA ruled in favor of the respondents in a dispute over Modvat credit utilization following a change in the company&#039;s name and registration certificate. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that a change in the company&#039;s name does not impact its rights and obligations. Despite the Revenue&#039;s argument that the change in registration certificate signaled the cessation of the previous company, the Tribunal held that the Modvat credit earned under the old name remained valid. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal and disposed of the respondents&#039; cross objection accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>