<?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 (1) TMI 655 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98840</link>
    <description>The six-month time limit for taking Modvat credit under the proviso to Rule 57G(2), inserted by Notification No. 28/95 with effect from 29-6-1995, did not govern an assessee&#039;s earlier short-credit claim. The dispute turned on the prospective application of the newly introduced limit, and the Department did not argue that the notification was clarificatory. On the facts, the earlier claim remained outside the new restriction, so the Department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:16:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 655 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98840</link>
      <description>The six-month time limit for taking Modvat credit under the proviso to Rule 57G(2), inserted by Notification No. 28/95 with effect from 29-6-1995, did not govern an assessee&#039;s earlier short-credit claim. The dispute turned on the prospective application of the newly introduced limit, and the Department did not argue that the notification was clarificatory. On the facts, the earlier claim remained outside the new restriction, so the Department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>