<?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>2009 (4) TMI 926 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174716</link>
    <description>Remission of duty under Rule 21 is examined in relation to whether Cenvat or MODVAT credit must be reversed when remission is claimed, including the effect of the CBEC circular on credit reversal. The substantial questions also concern whether repeated fire incidents, allegedly occurring without adequate fire-safety measures, can qualify as unavoidable events for Rule 21 remission. The High Court admitted the matter and issued notice on these questions of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:11:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 926 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174716</link>
      <description>Remission of duty under Rule 21 is examined in relation to whether Cenvat or MODVAT credit must be reversed when remission is claimed, including the effect of the CBEC circular on credit reversal. The substantial questions also concern whether repeated fire incidents, allegedly occurring without adequate fire-safety measures, can qualify as unavoidable events for Rule 21 remission. The High Court admitted the matter and issued notice on these questions of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>