<?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 (12) TMI 345 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107035</link>
    <description>Demand denying Modvat credit was held time-barred because Rule 57-I required the six-month limitation period to run from the date credit was taken, and the notice itself recorded that date. As the show cause notice was issued beyond that period, the limitation plea succeeded and the impugned demand order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:31:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 345 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107035</link>
      <description>Demand denying Modvat credit was held time-barred because Rule 57-I required the six-month limitation period to run from the date credit was taken, and the notice itself recorded that date. As the show cause notice was issued beyond that period, the limitation plea succeeded and the impugned demand order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>