<?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>2007 (11) TMI 537 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124536</link>
    <description>Modvat compliance was treated as sufficient where the appellant had not taken credit on 75% of the common inputs and the inputs used in exempted goods were only about 10 to 12%. The absence of separate storage facilities and day-to-day inventory for liquid common inputs was not treated as defeating prima facie compliance on the facts recorded. On that basis, the appellant was found to have established a strong prima facie case and was held entitled to unconditional stay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:26:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 537 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124536</link>
      <description>Modvat compliance was treated as sufficient where the appellant had not taken credit on 75% of the common inputs and the inputs used in exempted goods were only about 10 to 12%. The absence of separate storage facilities and day-to-day inventory for liquid common inputs was not treated as defeating prima facie compliance on the facts recorded. On that basis, the appellant was found to have established a strong prima facie case and was held entitled to unconditional stay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>