<?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 (6) TMI 850 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126707</link>
    <description>Accumulated deemed Modvat credit lawfully earned under an earlier notification did not lapse on rescission of that notification because no express statutory or notified provision required lapse or reversal. The subsequent introduction of the deemed credit facility, together with withdrawal of the compounded levy scheme, restored the position in which the credit could be used. In the absence of any legal bar to retention of the accumulated credit, the assessee remained entitled to utilise it later, either by refund or by direct adjustment against duty. Section 11B was not treated as defeating the claim on the facts stated, and the Revenue&#039;s objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 850 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126707</link>
      <description>Accumulated deemed Modvat credit lawfully earned under an earlier notification did not lapse on rescission of that notification because no express statutory or notified provision required lapse or reversal. The subsequent introduction of the deemed credit facility, together with withdrawal of the compounded levy scheme, restored the position in which the credit could be used. In the absence of any legal bar to retention of the accumulated credit, the assessee remained entitled to utilise it later, either by refund or by direct adjustment against duty. Section 11B was not treated as defeating the claim on the facts stated, and the Revenue&#039;s objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>