<?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>2008 (8) TMI 333 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34232</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because it was taken after several years where eligibility to the credit was undisputed and the applicable Cenvat rules prescribed no outer time limit. A limitation period cannot be imported by implication when the statute does not enact one. On that basis, delayed availment by itself was not a valid ground to refuse credit, and the assessee remained entitled to the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 333 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34232</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because it was taken after several years where eligibility to the credit was undisputed and the applicable Cenvat rules prescribed no outer time limit. A limitation period cannot be imported by implication when the statute does not enact one. On that basis, delayed availment by itself was not a valid ground to refuse credit, and the assessee remained entitled to the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>