<?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 (5) TMI 612 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104852</link>
    <description>Supplementary Modvat credit claimed on the basis of Rule 57E certificates was not available where the original credit had already lapsed under Rule 57F(17) by operation of Notification No. 11/95-C.E. dated 16-3-95. The Tribunal held that no fresh duty payment after that date was shown to create a separate post-lapse entitlement, and a Rule 57E certificate could not revive or continue credit that had been statutorily extinguished.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:45:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 612 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104852</link>
      <description>Supplementary Modvat credit claimed on the basis of Rule 57E certificates was not available where the original credit had already lapsed under Rule 57F(17) by operation of Notification No. 11/95-C.E. dated 16-3-95. The Tribunal held that no fresh duty payment after that date was shown to create a separate post-lapse entitlement, and a Rule 57E certificate could not revive or continue credit that had been statutorily extinguished.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>