<?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 (2) TMI 665 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126049</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inputs were received before the declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where receipt of inputs was undisputed and the only issue was the timing of filing the declaration. The Tribunal followed earlier Division Bench authority holding that credit remained admissible in such circumstances and declined to adopt a contrary Single Member view. On that basis, denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable and credit was held admissible to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:47:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 665 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126049</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inputs were received before the declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where receipt of inputs was undisputed and the only issue was the timing of filing the declaration. The Tribunal followed earlier Division Bench authority holding that credit remained admissible in such circumstances and declined to adopt a contrary Single Member view. On that basis, denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable and credit was held admissible to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>