<?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 (9) TMI 642 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112728</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the department acknowledged the Rule 57G declaration after delay, where the declaration had already been filed by the assessee. The operative fact was timely filing; the subsequent administrative delay in acknowledgment did not create a valid basis to refuse credit. On that reasoning, denial of Modvat credit solely for delayed departmental acknowledgment was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 15:13:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 642 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112728</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the department acknowledged the Rule 57G declaration after delay, where the declaration had already been filed by the assessee. The operative fact was timely filing; the subsequent administrative delay in acknowledgment did not create a valid basis to refuse credit. On that reasoning, denial of Modvat credit solely for delayed departmental acknowledgment was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>