<?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>2010 (3) TMI 63 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75629</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held to be properly available where the duplicate invoice was lost in transit and credit was claimed on the original invoice, because there was no allegation of forgery or fraud. The duty-paid character of the inputs, their receipt by the assessee, and their use in manufacturing the final product were undisputed, and no revenue loss was shown. On those facts, disallowance of Modvat credit was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 63 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75629</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held to be properly available where the duplicate invoice was lost in transit and credit was claimed on the original invoice, because there was no allegation of forgery or fraud. The duty-paid character of the inputs, their receipt by the assessee, and their use in manufacturing the final product were undisputed, and no revenue loss was shown. On those facts, disallowance of Modvat credit was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>