<?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 (11) TMI 972 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99907</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied to the recipient manufacturer merely because the supplier of inputs opted for a concessional duty notification instead of a full exemption. Where the supplier was entitled to choose between two available exemption notifications and elected to pay duty at the concessional rate, that statutory choice could not be dictated by the Revenue. On that basis, the recipient remained eligible for credit, and the denial of Modvat credit was held unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 972 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99907</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied to the recipient manufacturer merely because the supplier of inputs opted for a concessional duty notification instead of a full exemption. Where the supplier was entitled to choose between two available exemption notifications and elected to pay duty at the concessional rate, that statutory choice could not be dictated by the Revenue. On that basis, the recipient remained eligible for credit, and the denial of Modvat credit was held unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>