<?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>2008 (7) TMI 423 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48352</link>
    <description>Wrongful availment of Modvat credit was treated as a bona fide mistake where the assessee had taken credit of basic customs duty, the error was detected in audit, and the credit was reversed. The Tribunal found no material showing deliberate wrongdoing or mala fide intention, and noted that sufficient credit balance existed during the relevant period. The High Court treated these conclusions as findings of fact supported by the record, and no material was produced to displace them. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s view was not shown to be legally erroneous, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 423 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48352</link>
      <description>Wrongful availment of Modvat credit was treated as a bona fide mistake where the assessee had taken credit of basic customs duty, the error was detected in audit, and the credit was reversed. The Tribunal found no material showing deliberate wrongdoing or mala fide intention, and noted that sufficient credit balance existed during the relevant period. The High Court treated these conclusions as findings of fact supported by the record, and no material was produced to displace them. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s view was not shown to be legally erroneous, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>