<?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 (8) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46135</link>
    <description>Rule 57G allowed Modvat credit only after acknowledgment of the declaration, while Rule 57H governed inputs received or lying in stock before that acknowledgment and confined transitional credit to duty actually paid. Rule 57B was designed to grant a higher credit rate only where inputs were procured after opting for Modvat, including from small scale manufacturers, and it could not be read into the transitional scheme under Rule 57H. Accordingly, inputs already in stock when the declaration was acknowledged did not qualify for higher credit under Rule 57B, and the transitional credit claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:21:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46135</link>
      <description>Rule 57G allowed Modvat credit only after acknowledgment of the declaration, while Rule 57H governed inputs received or lying in stock before that acknowledgment and confined transitional credit to duty actually paid. Rule 57B was designed to grant a higher credit rate only where inputs were procured after opting for Modvat, including from small scale manufacturers, and it could not be read into the transitional scheme under Rule 57H. Accordingly, inputs already in stock when the declaration was acknowledged did not qualify for higher credit under Rule 57B, and the transitional credit claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>