<?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 275 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76747</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57G was held admissible on an import application in Form 89 linked to a bill of entry, because the bill of entry was treated as a valid duty-paying document for imported goods. The Court applied the credit provisions as beneficial legislation and rejected a technical or strict construction where no fraud or misuse of documents was alleged. On that basis, the import document satisfied the documentary requirement for credit and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 275 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76747</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57G was held admissible on an import application in Form 89 linked to a bill of entry, because the bill of entry was treated as a valid duty-paying document for imported goods. The Court applied the credit provisions as beneficial legislation and rejected a technical or strict construction where no fraud or misuse of documents was alleged. On that basis, the import document satisfied the documentary requirement for credit and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>