<?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 (7) TMI 200 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51641</link>
    <description>Excess Modvat credit reversed under a departmental amnesty formula was held to require verification on actual figures, because the circulars and later clarification permitted correction where the amount reversed exceeded the credit actually availed. The payment was treated as made under departmental direction and protest, not as a purely voluntary discharge. The claim could not be rejected merely because earlier customs proceedings had been closed, since the refund dispute concerned the quantum actually required to be reversed and called for independent de novo scrutiny. The matter was remanded for fresh determination with opportunity to adduce evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:31:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 200 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51641</link>
      <description>Excess Modvat credit reversed under a departmental amnesty formula was held to require verification on actual figures, because the circulars and later clarification permitted correction where the amount reversed exceeded the credit actually availed. The payment was treated as made under departmental direction and protest, not as a purely voluntary discharge. The claim could not be rejected merely because earlier customs proceedings had been closed, since the refund dispute concerned the quantum actually required to be reversed and called for independent de novo scrutiny. The matter was remanded for fresh determination with opportunity to adduce evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>