<?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>2009 (1) TMI 703 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125978</link>
    <description>A show cause notice issued under erstwhile Rule 57-I could not sustain recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit after that rule had ceased to exist on the statute book. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that a notice founded on a provision which had become non est is invalid for recovery purposes. Because the demand rested entirely on that defunct provision, the notice failed at the threshold and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 09:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 703 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125978</link>
      <description>A show cause notice issued under erstwhile Rule 57-I could not sustain recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit after that rule had ceased to exist on the statute book. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that a notice founded on a provision which had become non est is invalid for recovery purposes. Because the demand rested entirely on that defunct provision, the notice failed at the threshold and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>