<?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 (8) TMI 1005 - Karnataka High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166259</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was available where the assessee&#039;s earlier order on identical facts, process and inputs had already been accepted by the Revenue, because the later dispute was covered by that prior determination and no distinguishing basis was shown. The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal&#039;s view in favour of the assessee. As the matter was decided on merits, the limitation question did not require separate consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2014 22:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1005 - Karnataka High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166259</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was available where the assessee&#039;s earlier order on identical facts, process and inputs had already been accepted by the Revenue, because the later dispute was covered by that prior determination and no distinguishing basis was shown. The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal&#039;s view in favour of the assessee. As the matter was decided on merits, the limitation question did not require separate consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>