<?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>2013 (11) TMI 742 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239565</link>
    <description>One-time transitional CENVAT credit under Rule 9A for textile-sector stock lying on 31-03-2003/01-04-2003 was available where the assessee maintained production and clearance records and paid duty on final products. Procedural lapses in the declaration were treated as non-fatal when the revenue failed to prove that the disputed stock was received only after 01-04-2003. The declaration filed on the next working day was accepted as timely because the prescribed last date fell on a Sunday, and the next working day principle was applied by analogy to the Limitation Act. The credit was therefore allowed and the disallowance rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2015 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 742 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239565</link>
      <description>One-time transitional CENVAT credit under Rule 9A for textile-sector stock lying on 31-03-2003/01-04-2003 was available where the assessee maintained production and clearance records and paid duty on final products. Procedural lapses in the declaration were treated as non-fatal when the revenue failed to prove that the disputed stock was received only after 01-04-2003. The declaration filed on the next working day was accepted as timely because the prescribed last date fell on a Sunday, and the next working day principle was applied by analogy to the Limitation Act. The credit was therefore allowed and the disallowance rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>