<?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>1997 (10) TMI 367 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109703</link>
    <description>Jack assemblies supplied with motor vehicles were treated as admissible Modvat inputs because they formed part of the sale package used in relation to manufacture and clearance of the final product. A mere RT-12 endorsement that assessment was provisional did not amount to a valid provisional assessment under Rule 9B, so the Department could not rely on it to defeat limitation. The notice was therefore time-barred. The demand was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:49:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 367 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109703</link>
      <description>Jack assemblies supplied with motor vehicles were treated as admissible Modvat inputs because they formed part of the sale package used in relation to manufacture and clearance of the final product. A mere RT-12 endorsement that assessment was provisional did not amount to a valid provisional assessment under Rule 9B, so the Department could not rely on it to defeat limitation. The notice was therefore time-barred. The demand was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>