<?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>1993 (9) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43936</link>
    <description>MODVAT deemed credit under the 7 April 1986 order was treated as a limited exception to the general rule that credit is available only on duty-paid inputs. A manufacturer claiming the higher or specific deemed credit had to identify the input with certainty and support eligibility with bills or other evidence. The order did not create a blanket presumption that all scrap or steel inputs qualified, and the department could test whether the claim fell within the stated exclusions, including goods recognisable as non-duty paid or chargeable at nil rate. The claimant, not the department in the first instance, had to make a definite and substantiated claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:02:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (9) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43936</link>
      <description>MODVAT deemed credit under the 7 April 1986 order was treated as a limited exception to the general rule that credit is available only on duty-paid inputs. A manufacturer claiming the higher or specific deemed credit had to identify the input with certainty and support eligibility with bills or other evidence. The order did not create a blanket presumption that all scrap or steel inputs qualified, and the department could test whether the claim fell within the stated exclusions, including goods recognisable as non-duty paid or chargeable at nil rate. The claimant, not the department in the first instance, had to make a definite and substantiated claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>