<?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>1992 (1) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43269</link>
    <description>A claim for differential MODVAT credit arising from short credit is treated as a refund claim and is subject to the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; the belated claim was therefore time-barred. On merits, credit under Notification No. 27/87 had to be taken contemporaneously when the oil was hydrogenated, with compliance capable of verification under the MODVAT framework. Because the assessee did not take the full credit within the prescribed scheme and later verification would be defeated, the differential credit was not allowable. The refund claim failed on both limitation and merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:43:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43269</link>
      <description>A claim for differential MODVAT credit arising from short credit is treated as a refund claim and is subject to the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; the belated claim was therefore time-barred. On merits, credit under Notification No. 27/87 had to be taken contemporaneously when the oil was hydrogenated, with compliance capable of verification under the MODVAT framework. Because the assessee did not take the full credit within the prescribed scheme and later verification would be defeated, the differential credit was not allowable. The refund claim failed on both limitation and merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>