<?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 (9) TMI 786 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99225</link>
    <description>Modvat credit taken beyond the six-month period from the date of invoice under Notification No. 28/95 was treated as time-barred because the prescribed limit was mandatory, not merely procedural. The authorities correctly refused relief, as the stipulated period could not be relaxed by condoning delay. The claim for credit was therefore not allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:17:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 786 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99225</link>
      <description>Modvat credit taken beyond the six-month period from the date of invoice under Notification No. 28/95 was treated as time-barred because the prescribed limit was mandatory, not merely procedural. The authorities correctly refused relief, as the stipulated period could not be relaxed by condoning delay. The claim for credit was therefore not allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>