<?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>2002 (4) TMI 598 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104185</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57T could not be denied merely because the departmental acknowledgement of the declaration was issued late, where the assessee had already filed the prescribed declaration and the delay was attributable to the Department. The Tribunal relied on its earlier binding decisions and the relevant Board circular, which supported allowing credit in such circumstances. On that basis, it held there was no factual or legal ground to distinguish the precedent and sustained the order granting credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:51:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 598 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104185</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57T could not be denied merely because the departmental acknowledgement of the declaration was issued late, where the assessee had already filed the prescribed declaration and the delay was attributable to the Department. The Tribunal relied on its earlier binding decisions and the relevant Board circular, which supported allowing credit in such circumstances. On that basis, it held there was no factual or legal ground to distinguish the precedent and sustained the order granting credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>