<?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 444 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95914</link>
    <description>Amended Modvat rules and the applicable Board circular provided that credit should not be denied merely because a declaration omitted some particulars or was filed beyond the earlier three-month period. The assessee&#039;s declaration for parts of a gangsaw machine was undisputed, and the only objections were the absence of a specific machine reference and delay in filing. In light of Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., and the Larger Bench direction for re-examination under the amended rule, the matter required fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority. Denial of Modvat credit was therefore not sustained on the existing record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:04:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 444 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95914</link>
      <description>Amended Modvat rules and the applicable Board circular provided that credit should not be denied merely because a declaration omitted some particulars or was filed beyond the earlier three-month period. The assessee&#039;s declaration for parts of a gangsaw machine was undisputed, and the only objections were the absence of a specific machine reference and delay in filing. In light of Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., and the Larger Bench direction for re-examination under the amended rule, the matter required fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority. Denial of Modvat credit was therefore not sustained on the existing record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>