<?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 (12) TMI 434 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122921</link>
    <description>Credit was reversed before the show cause notice, after the goods had been notified, and the Revenue did not dispute the assessee&#039;s reversal computation. On that prima facie basis, the Tribunal treated the lapse, if any, as procedural and distinguished cases where credit had not been reversed at all. It held that the assessee had shown sufficient compliance for interim purposes and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:02:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 434 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122921</link>
      <description>Credit was reversed before the show cause notice, after the goods had been notified, and the Revenue did not dispute the assessee&#039;s reversal computation. On that prima facie basis, the Tribunal treated the lapse, if any, as procedural and distinguished cases where credit had not been reversed at all. It held that the assessee had shown sufficient compliance for interim purposes and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>