<?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 688 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104843</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on specified capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held admissible. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was based only on the fact that a special leave petition had been filed against the Larger Bench ruling on the scope of capital goods credit, but that objection failed because the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue&#039;s petition. The governing precedent therefore continued to apply, and credit could not be denied on the same issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:24:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 688 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104843</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on specified capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held admissible. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was based only on the fact that a special leave petition had been filed against the Larger Bench ruling on the scope of capital goods credit, but that objection failed because the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue&#039;s petition. The governing precedent therefore continued to apply, and credit could not be denied on the same issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>