<?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>1986 (8) TMI 61 - High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41745</link>
    <description>Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 created a complete and conditional proforma credit scheme for specified finished excisable goods. Credit was available only where the finished goods were dutiable and the inputs either fell under the same tariff item as the finished goods or were covered by a specific remission or adjustment by the Central Government. The proviso to Rule 56A(2) was treated as an integral limitation on the credit scheme, not as a separate or conflicting provision. On that construction, there was no repugnancy between Rule 56A(1), the main part of Rule 56A(2) and its proviso, and credit was denied where the statutory conditions were not satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:32:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80274" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 61 - High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41745</link>
      <description>Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 created a complete and conditional proforma credit scheme for specified finished excisable goods. Credit was available only where the finished goods were dutiable and the inputs either fell under the same tariff item as the finished goods or were covered by a specific remission or adjustment by the Central Government. The proviso to Rule 56A(2) was treated as an integral limitation on the credit scheme, not as a separate or conflicting provision. On that construction, there was no repugnancy between Rule 56A(1), the main part of Rule 56A(2) and its proviso, and credit was denied where the statutory conditions were not satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>