<?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>2005 (10) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3724</link>
    <description>Accumulated deemed Modvat credit became refundable in cash when the textile levy regime changed and the credit could no longer be utilised. Notification No. 29 of 1996 was read broadly to cover inability to adjust credit for any reason, including the shift to a compounded levy scheme, so the refund claim was allowable. The objection based on Notification No. 85/87-CE failed because the refund arose only after utilisation became impossible. Omission to specify the relevant quarter was treated as a curable defect and did not justify rejection of the claim. No substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings, and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3724</link>
      <description>Accumulated deemed Modvat credit became refundable in cash when the textile levy regime changed and the credit could no longer be utilised. Notification No. 29 of 1996 was read broadly to cover inability to adjust credit for any reason, including the shift to a compounded levy scheme, so the refund claim was allowable. The objection based on Notification No. 85/87-CE failed because the refund arose only after utilisation became impossible. Omission to specify the relevant quarter was treated as a curable defect and did not justify rejection of the claim. No substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings, and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>