<?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 (4) TMI 619 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100042</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on inputs claimed without a Rule 57G declaration remained unresolved on the merits, as the Tribunal confined itself to implementing the High Court&#039;s reference under Section 35G and forwarding the record for adjudication. It prepared a statement of facts, called for four sets of paper books and supporting documents from the Revenue, and directed transmission of the papers to the Registrar of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The earlier remand directions also continued to require verification of the dutypaid character of the inputs and recomputation of Modvat adjustments, with penalty to be reconsidered afresh, but the substantive entitlement issue was left for the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:42:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 619 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100042</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on inputs claimed without a Rule 57G declaration remained unresolved on the merits, as the Tribunal confined itself to implementing the High Court&#039;s reference under Section 35G and forwarding the record for adjudication. It prepared a statement of facts, called for four sets of paper books and supporting documents from the Revenue, and directed transmission of the papers to the Registrar of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The earlier remand directions also continued to require verification of the dutypaid character of the inputs and recomputation of Modvat adjustments, with penalty to be reconsidered afresh, but the substantive entitlement issue was left for the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>