<?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 (12) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50034</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57F(7) was transferable only if it was unutilised and lying in RG 23A on the relevant date of closure or change of site; credit taken after the Bangalore unit had already closed could not satisfy that condition, so transfer was inadmissible. Rule 57E allowed adjustment by additional credit when duty on inputs was subsequently varied, but it did not authorise cash refund of the differential credit, so refund in cash was also inadmissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:08:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50034</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57F(7) was transferable only if it was unutilised and lying in RG 23A on the relevant date of closure or change of site; credit taken after the Bangalore unit had already closed could not satisfy that condition, so transfer was inadmissible. Rule 57E allowed adjustment by additional credit when duty on inputs was subsequently varied, but it did not authorise cash refund of the differential credit, so refund in cash was also inadmissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>