<?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 (9) TMI 213 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51656</link>
    <description>A certificate issued under erstwhile Rule 57E remained effective for credit purposes after the excise rules changed because Section 38A operated as a saving clause. Actions and documents validly created under the repealed or amended regime were preserved, so the post-amendment authorities could not disregard the certificate merely on the ground that the new rules treated it as invalid. The legal effect was that credit could still be availed on the basis of the earlier certificate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:54:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 213 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51656</link>
      <description>A certificate issued under erstwhile Rule 57E remained effective for credit purposes after the excise rules changed because Section 38A operated as a saving clause. Actions and documents validly created under the repealed or amended regime were preserved, so the post-amendment authorities could not disregard the certificate merely on the ground that the new rules treated it as invalid. The legal effect was that credit could still be availed on the basis of the earlier certificate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>