<?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 (10) TMI 295 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120168</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57G required a declaration to be filed before taking credit, with acknowledgement from the Assistant Commissioner, and delayed filing was permitted only if delay was condoned by a reasoned order on sufficient cause. Where the declaration was filed after receipt of the inputs and no request for condonation of delay was made, the credit was not admissible. The demand and penalty were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:12:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157164" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 295 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120168</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57G required a declaration to be filed before taking credit, with acknowledgement from the Assistant Commissioner, and delayed filing was permitted only if delay was condoned by a reasoned order on sufficient cause. Where the declaration was filed after receipt of the inputs and no request for condonation of delay was made, the credit was not admissible. The demand and penalty were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>