<?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>2012 (4) TMI 511 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246428</link>
    <description>Modvat credit lying unutilised in the account of a merged company could not be denied to the successor assessee merely for not filing a declaration under Rule 57H before utilisation or for not seeking prior departmental approval. The merger was undisputed, the department had been informed promptly, the registration certificate was amended, and the earlier declarations and documents were requested to be treated as those of the successor. Because the department had the relevant information and no prejudice was shown, the omission was only procedural and technical. The denial of credit and the related penalty were therefore not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:20:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353049" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 511 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246428</link>
      <description>Modvat credit lying unutilised in the account of a merged company could not be denied to the successor assessee merely for not filing a declaration under Rule 57H before utilisation or for not seeking prior departmental approval. The merger was undisputed, the department had been informed promptly, the registration certificate was amended, and the earlier declarations and documents were requested to be treated as those of the successor. Because the department had the relevant information and no prejudice was shown, the omission was only procedural and technical. The denial of credit and the related penalty were therefore not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>