<?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>2011 (3) TMI 363 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205241</link>
    <description>Entitlement to unconditional waiver of pre-deposit was supported by revenue neutrality and a prima facie case in a dispute over denial of Modvat credit on capital goods. The credit was alleged to have been taken in full in the second year instead of in two instalments, and reliance on a revised income-tax return was not accepted because the income-tax authorities had not yet decided the issue. The dispute was nevertheless treated as revenue neutral since any inadmissible credit could not be used to pay duty on final products, and clearances from Kutch were liable to refund under Notification No. 39/2001-CX. On that basis, unconditional stay of the pre-deposit requirement was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 363 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205241</link>
      <description>Entitlement to unconditional waiver of pre-deposit was supported by revenue neutrality and a prima facie case in a dispute over denial of Modvat credit on capital goods. The credit was alleged to have been taken in full in the second year instead of in two instalments, and reliance on a revised income-tax return was not accepted because the income-tax authorities had not yet decided the issue. The dispute was nevertheless treated as revenue neutral since any inadmissible credit could not be used to pay duty on final products, and clearances from Kutch were liable to refund under Notification No. 39/2001-CX. On that basis, unconditional stay of the pre-deposit requirement was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>