<?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 (12) TMI 576 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97723</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the order-in-appeal allowing Modvat credit by condoning the delay in filing the declaration under Rule 57T. It was determined that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to reverse the adjudicational authority&#039;s order and condone the delay. The impugned order was deemed valid and justified, supported by legal precedent and previous Tribunal decisions. Ultimately, the appeal lacked merit, leading to its dismissal in favor of the respondents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:47:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 576 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97723</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the order-in-appeal allowing Modvat credit by condoning the delay in filing the declaration under Rule 57T. It was determined that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to reverse the adjudicational authority&#039;s order and condone the delay. The impugned order was deemed valid and justified, supported by legal precedent and previous Tribunal decisions. Ultimately, the appeal lacked merit, leading to its dismissal in favor of the respondents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>