<?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 (11) TMI 412 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118932</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible where the supplier&#039;s clearance occurred during a later-finalised classification dispute and the intervening period was treated as provisional even without a formal bond. The tribunal also treated Notification No. 51/2000-C.E. (N.T.) dated 29-8-2000 as clarificatory and retrospective, so credit was not denied merely because it was taken after the relevant date. On that basis, the supplementary invoice did not defeat entitlement, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:29:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 412 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118932</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible where the supplier&#039;s clearance occurred during a later-finalised classification dispute and the intervening period was treated as provisional even without a formal bond. The tribunal also treated Notification No. 51/2000-C.E. (N.T.) dated 29-8-2000 as clarificatory and retrospective, so credit was not denied merely because it was taken after the relevant date. On that basis, the supplementary invoice did not defeat entitlement, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>