<?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 (9) TMI 420 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97365</link>
    <description>Rule 57E(2) permits additional Modvat credit when further duty is recovered on inputs, but Rule 57E(3) excludes that benefit only where the short levy arose from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Because the show cause notice referred only to differential duty on a change of classification and did not allege those statutory ingredients or invoke the extended period, those grounds could not be added later to deny the certificate. The same notice-based requirement was applied to the proviso to Section 11A(1). The assessee was therefore entitled to the Rule 57E certificate, and denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:57:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 420 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97365</link>
      <description>Rule 57E(2) permits additional Modvat credit when further duty is recovered on inputs, but Rule 57E(3) excludes that benefit only where the short levy arose from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Because the show cause notice referred only to differential duty on a change of classification and did not allege those statutory ingredients or invoke the extended period, those grounds could not be added later to deny the certificate. The same notice-based requirement was applied to the proviso to Section 11A(1). The assessee was therefore entitled to the Rule 57E certificate, and denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>