<?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>1994 (7) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83368</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit was treated as admissible where gate passes were endorsed by an authorised agent of the consignor, because the consignments were diverted to the recipient with the consignor&#039;s agreement, reached the factory in original packing, and had not been received or credited by the original consignee. The endorsement defect was regarded as procedural only, and Rule 57G was held to have been substantially complied with. On that basis, the credit claim was accepted and the Revenue&#039;s objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:34:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83368</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit was treated as admissible where gate passes were endorsed by an authorised agent of the consignor, because the consignments were diverted to the recipient with the consignor&#039;s agreement, reached the factory in original packing, and had not been received or credited by the original consignee. The endorsement defect was regarded as procedural only, and Rule 57G was held to have been substantially complied with. On that basis, the credit claim was accepted and the Revenue&#039;s objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>