<?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>2001 (1) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95274</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was claimed to have been denied only because of a minor procedural lapse, while a Board circular clarified that such credit should not be rejected on that basis. The Tribunal found that the circular supported a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants. On that footing, pre-deposit of the disputed duty was waived and the appeal was allowed to proceed without insisting on deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:11:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95274</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was claimed to have been denied only because of a minor procedural lapse, while a Board circular clarified that such credit should not be rejected on that basis. The Tribunal found that the circular supported a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants. On that footing, pre-deposit of the disputed duty was waived and the appeal was allowed to proceed without insisting on deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>