<?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>2004 (7) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47093</link>
    <description>Reversal of Modvat credit on inputs can satisfy an exemption condition requiring that credit not be availed, even if the reversal occurs after clearance of the final product, where the governing notification does not require prior reversal. The court treated deletion or debit of the credit entry as removing the basis for denial of exemption and followed the settled view that post-clearance reversal does not defeat the exemption in the absence of an express circular or notification condition to that effect. The earlier Supreme Court reasoning was distinguished because it turned on a specific circular requiring reversal before removal, which was not applicable here. The assessee was therefore entitled to exemption under Notification No. 15/94-C.E.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47093</link>
      <description>Reversal of Modvat credit on inputs can satisfy an exemption condition requiring that credit not be availed, even if the reversal occurs after clearance of the final product, where the governing notification does not require prior reversal. The court treated deletion or debit of the credit entry as removing the basis for denial of exemption and followed the settled view that post-clearance reversal does not defeat the exemption in the absence of an express circular or notification condition to that effect. The earlier Supreme Court reasoning was distinguished because it turned on a specific circular requiring reversal before removal, which was not applicable here. The assessee was therefore entitled to exemption under Notification No. 15/94-C.E.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>