<?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 (12) TMI 705 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105560</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration was filed after credit was taken, where receipt of duty-paid inputs and their use in manufacture were undisputed. The delayed filing was treated as a procedural and unintentional lapse, and no prejudice to the department was shown. On that basis, the technical breach was rightly ignored and the assessee was allowed to retain the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:17:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 705 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105560</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration was filed after credit was taken, where receipt of duty-paid inputs and their use in manufacture were undisputed. The delayed filing was treated as a procedural and unintentional lapse, and no prejudice to the department was shown. On that basis, the technical breach was rightly ignored and the assessee was allowed to retain the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>