<?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 (5) TMI 139 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51404</link>
    <description>Rule 57F(13) allows Modvat credit on inputs used in exported final products and permits refund where credit cannot be adjusted, subject to prescribed safeguards. The analysis notes that the manufacturer had produced RG 23A Part I and related records before the Assistant Commissioner, supporting maintenance of input accounts and prior sanction of refund for an earlier quarter. It also found no material showing that the manufacturer had opted out of the Modvat scheme for the exported product, and the fact that another product was cleared under SSI exemption did not by itself defeat the claim. On that basis, denial of refund for alleged procedural non-compliance was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:56:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 139 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51404</link>
      <description>Rule 57F(13) allows Modvat credit on inputs used in exported final products and permits refund where credit cannot be adjusted, subject to prescribed safeguards. The analysis notes that the manufacturer had produced RG 23A Part I and related records before the Assistant Commissioner, supporting maintenance of input accounts and prior sanction of refund for an earlier quarter. It also found no material showing that the manufacturer had opted out of the Modvat scheme for the exported product, and the fact that another product was cleared under SSI exemption did not by itself defeat the claim. On that basis, denial of refund for alleged procedural non-compliance was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>