<?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 (3) TMI 760 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106180</link>
    <description>Modvat credit cannot be denied solely because a separate initial declaration was not filed under Rule 57Q, where the classification list itself disclosed the relevant inputs and final products and clearly showed the intention to claim credit. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions and treated the later filing of the Rule 57G declaration as supporting the claim. On those facts, the absence of an independent declaration at the first stage did not justify refusal of credit, and the assessee&#039;s entitlement was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:48:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 760 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106180</link>
      <description>Modvat credit cannot be denied solely because a separate initial declaration was not filed under Rule 57Q, where the classification list itself disclosed the relevant inputs and final products and clearly showed the intention to claim credit. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions and treated the later filing of the Rule 57G declaration as supporting the claim. On those facts, the absence of an independent declaration at the first stage did not justify refusal of credit, and the assessee&#039;s entitlement was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>