<?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 (6) TMI 561 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109161</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-Central Excise was treated as conditional on invoices showing that appropriate excise duty had in fact been paid. The benefit of the notification was available only when the supplier&#039;s duty liability under Section 3A was actually discharged at the prescribed rate. Because the Central Excise Division&#039;s verification report had not been confronted to the respondents, the record was insufficient for a final determination. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the parties an opportunity to rebut the material and verify whether the suppliers had paid the appropriate duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:49:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 561 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109161</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-Central Excise was treated as conditional on invoices showing that appropriate excise duty had in fact been paid. The benefit of the notification was available only when the supplier&#039;s duty liability under Section 3A was actually discharged at the prescribed rate. Because the Central Excise Division&#039;s verification report had not been confronted to the respondents, the record was insufficient for a final determination. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the parties an opportunity to rebut the material and verify whether the suppliers had paid the appropriate duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>