<?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>2006 (9) TMI 379 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119982</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on refractory material, withheld because the Revenue objected to its admissibility during a live dispute, could be taken after the dispute was finally resolved in the assessee&#039;s favour. The Tribunal held that Rule 57G(5)&#039;s six-month limit applied to ordinary credit claims in the normal course, not to credit deferred solely because departmental objection prevented availment. No independent statutory bar was shown, so the credit was not time-barred and the connected penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:35:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 379 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119982</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on refractory material, withheld because the Revenue objected to its admissibility during a live dispute, could be taken after the dispute was finally resolved in the assessee&#039;s favour. The Tribunal held that Rule 57G(5)&#039;s six-month limit applied to ordinary credit claims in the normal course, not to credit deferred solely because departmental objection prevented availment. No independent statutory bar was shown, so the credit was not time-barred and the connected penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>