<?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>2005 (1) TMI 457 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114936</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit could not be denied where the invoices stated that the goods were cleared under Rule 96ZP, because that declaration was treated as sufficient compliance with Notification No. 58/97-C.E. and no further formality was required. Credit also could not be refused on the ground that the manufacturer had not paid interest on delayed duty, because interest was held not to form part of duty. On both grounds, denial of deemed Modvat credit was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 14:29:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 457 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114936</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit could not be denied where the invoices stated that the goods were cleared under Rule 96ZP, because that declaration was treated as sufficient compliance with Notification No. 58/97-C.E. and no further formality was required. Credit also could not be refused on the ground that the manufacturer had not paid interest on delayed duty, because interest was held not to form part of duty. On both grounds, denial of deemed Modvat credit was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>