<?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 (2) TMI 1010 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209140</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit denial was held time-barred because the extended period under Rule 57I could not be invoked without suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The assessee had filed monthly returns regularly, supported by the relevant duty-paying documents, and the documents were duly defaced by the proper officer. As the relevant particulars had been disclosed and no concealment was established, the demand for denial of credit could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1010 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209140</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit denial was held time-barred because the extended period under Rule 57I could not be invoked without suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The assessee had filed monthly returns regularly, supported by the relevant duty-paying documents, and the documents were duly defaced by the proper officer. As the relevant particulars had been disclosed and no concealment was established, the demand for denial of credit could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>