<?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 (2) TMI 386 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95504</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on gate passes issued before 1-4-1994 was disputed where the credit was taken after 30-6-1994 under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.). The departmental view was that the notification restricted such gate passes to credits taken on or before 30-6-1994, while earlier Tribunal rulings had held that a valid gate pass could not be denied merely because credit was taken later. One Member accepted that the notification conditions had legal force, but noted conflicting Tribunal decisions and concluded that the issue required authoritative resolution by a Larger Bench. The matter was therefore referred to the President for placement before a Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:20:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 386 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95504</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on gate passes issued before 1-4-1994 was disputed where the credit was taken after 30-6-1994 under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.). The departmental view was that the notification restricted such gate passes to credits taken on or before 30-6-1994, while earlier Tribunal rulings had held that a valid gate pass could not be denied merely because credit was taken later. One Member accepted that the notification conditions had legal force, but noted conflicting Tribunal decisions and concluded that the issue required authoritative resolution by a Larger Bench. The matter was therefore referred to the President for placement before a Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>