<?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>2002 (11) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46762</link>
    <description>Rule 56A credit was available only subject to the conditions imposed by the rule-making authority, and the second proviso inserted by Notification No. 104/79 expressly excluded countervailing duty credit where the material or component parts fell under Tariff Item No. 68. Read with Notification No. 109/80, which made compliance with Rule 56A mandatory for availing Notification No. 103/61, entitlement to credit depended on strict satisfaction of the prescribed procedure and conditions. The contention that the proviso was merely substantive and severable from the Rule 56A scheme was rejected, and credit of countervailing duty on the imported intermediates was not available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:10:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46762</link>
      <description>Rule 56A credit was available only subject to the conditions imposed by the rule-making authority, and the second proviso inserted by Notification No. 104/79 expressly excluded countervailing duty credit where the material or component parts fell under Tariff Item No. 68. Read with Notification No. 109/80, which made compliance with Rule 56A mandatory for availing Notification No. 103/61, entitlement to credit depended on strict satisfaction of the prescribed procedure and conditions. The contention that the proviso was merely substantive and severable from the Rule 56A scheme was rejected, and credit of countervailing duty on the imported intermediates was not available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>