<?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>2005 (10) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48137</link>
    <description>Accumulated deemed Modvat credit was treated as refundable in cash where a textile manufacturer/exporter could no longer utilise the balance after introduction of the compounded levy scheme requiring duty payment in cash. The commentary notes that objections based on Notification No. 85/87-C.E. and limitation did not defeat the claim because the refund arose only when the credit became incapable of utilisation under the changed scheme. It also states that omission to specify the relevant quarter in the refund application was a curable procedural defect and did not invalidate an otherwise accepted substantive entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:07:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48137</link>
      <description>Accumulated deemed Modvat credit was treated as refundable in cash where a textile manufacturer/exporter could no longer utilise the balance after introduction of the compounded levy scheme requiring duty payment in cash. The commentary notes that objections based on Notification No. 85/87-C.E. and limitation did not defeat the claim because the refund arose only when the credit became incapable of utilisation under the changed scheme. It also states that omission to specify the relevant quarter in the refund application was a curable procedural defect and did not invalidate an otherwise accepted substantive entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48137</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>