<?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>2007 (7) TMI 78 -  CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2272</link>
    <description>A special transitional credit scheme under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 governed textile manufacturers&#039; credit claims for inputs, semi-finished goods and finished goods lying in stock on 31-3-2003, and the general credit rule under Rule 3(2) could not be used to bypass that regime. Entitlement to credit remained dependent on filing the required declarations and duty-paid supporting documents, including any delayed compliance supported by sufficient cause. Because the original and lower appellate authorities had not examined these matters afresh, the proper course was de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence and be heard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 78 -  CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2272</link>
      <description>A special transitional credit scheme under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 governed textile manufacturers&#039; credit claims for inputs, semi-finished goods and finished goods lying in stock on 31-3-2003, and the general credit rule under Rule 3(2) could not be used to bypass that regime. Entitlement to credit remained dependent on filing the required declarations and duty-paid supporting documents, including any delayed compliance supported by sufficient cause. Because the original and lower appellate authorities had not examined these matters afresh, the proper course was de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence and be heard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>