<?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 (10) TMI 1018 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106060</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit on inputs from iron and steel manufacturers under the Compounded Levy Scheme was available where duty had been paid on the basis of provisional annual capacity under Rule 96ZP(3) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that such provisional payment could not be rejected merely because final annual capacity had not yet been settled, and the notification did not require a Range Officer&#039;s certificate from the input manufacturer. An invoice declaration showing discharge of duty liability, or a supplementary certificate curing any deficiency, was sufficient. On that basis, the appellant made out a strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:13:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1018 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106060</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit on inputs from iron and steel manufacturers under the Compounded Levy Scheme was available where duty had been paid on the basis of provisional annual capacity under Rule 96ZP(3) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that such provisional payment could not be rejected merely because final annual capacity had not yet been settled, and the notification did not require a Range Officer&#039;s certificate from the input manufacturer. An invoice declaration showing discharge of duty liability, or a supplementary certificate curing any deficiency, was sufficient. On that basis, the appellant made out a strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>