<?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 (6) TMI 430 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95662</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on Fibre Glass Filter Mesh was allowed because the assessee&#039;s earlier case on the same input had already been decided in its favour and upheld by the High Court, so the same reasoning was followed. The Terracot dispute was not finally decided because it had earlier been remanded and remained unresolved; it was therefore sent back for de novo adjudication with opportunity of hearing and examination of evidence and case law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:19:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 430 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95662</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on Fibre Glass Filter Mesh was allowed because the assessee&#039;s earlier case on the same input had already been decided in its favour and upheld by the High Court, so the same reasoning was followed. The Terracot dispute was not finally decided because it had earlier been remanded and remained unresolved; it was therefore sent back for de novo adjudication with opportunity of hearing and examination of evidence and case law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>