<?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>2003 (4) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109840</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendment of the Modvat notification reduced admissible credit on the relevant inputs to 10% from the original date, so credit beyond that limit was not available. Where the assessee had already reversed the excess credit in compliance with departmental direction, without protest, it could not later object to the enforceability of that direction or insist on a separate show cause notice before denial of the excess credit. The additional objection regarding the absence of valid duty paying documents also remained unanswered on the record. The stated conclusion was that recredit above the amended limit was not permissible and the procedural challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:44:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109840</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendment of the Modvat notification reduced admissible credit on the relevant inputs to 10% from the original date, so credit beyond that limit was not available. Where the assessee had already reversed the excess credit in compliance with departmental direction, without protest, it could not later object to the enforceability of that direction or insist on a separate show cause notice before denial of the excess credit. The additional objection regarding the absence of valid duty paying documents also remained unanswered on the record. The stated conclusion was that recredit above the amended limit was not permissible and the procedural challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>