<?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>2000 (2) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45446</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be refused merely because the claim was made belatedly where no limitation period was prescribed. The Court held that, if delay was explained, the excise authority had to consider that explanation before rejecting the claim on limitation grounds. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the authority after taking the petitioner&#039;s explanation for delay into account.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:14:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45446</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be refused merely because the claim was made belatedly where no limitation period was prescribed. The Court held that, if delay was explained, the excise authority had to consider that explanation before rejecting the claim on limitation grounds. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the authority after taking the petitioner&#039;s explanation for delay into account.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>