<?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 (8) TMI 1214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190343</link>
    <description>Clearances without payment of duty under Rule 191B or Rule 191BB were treated as export-related removals and not as goods wholly exempt from duty or chargeable at nil rate, so the Modvat credit bar in Rule 57C did not apply. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s view allowing credit was not erroneous, and no substantial or referable question of law survived for a reference under Section 35H. The request for a direction to refer the questions was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:25:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190343</link>
      <description>Clearances without payment of duty under Rule 191B or Rule 191BB were treated as export-related removals and not as goods wholly exempt from duty or chargeable at nil rate, so the Modvat credit bar in Rule 57C did not apply. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s view allowing credit was not erroneous, and no substantial or referable question of law survived for a reference under Section 35H. The request for a direction to refer the questions was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>