<?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>1996 (3) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85089</link>
    <description>Credit under the declaration provision depended on a reasonable and identifiable correlation between the declared goods and the goods received. Credit was correctly denied for pedal gear change boss and plate because the declaration describing rejected auto parts did not sufficiently identify those goods, and the gate passes did not show they were covered as rejected or defective parts. Credit was allowed for H.P. Plate received from SAIL because the delivery challan and duty-paid certificate matched the declaration covering other hot rolled products. Penalty was not warranted where the dispute turned on correlatable description and no penal circumstances were shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85089</link>
      <description>Credit under the declaration provision depended on a reasonable and identifiable correlation between the declared goods and the goods received. Credit was correctly denied for pedal gear change boss and plate because the declaration describing rejected auto parts did not sufficiently identify those goods, and the gate passes did not show they were covered as rejected or defective parts. Credit was allowed for H.P. Plate received from SAIL because the delivery challan and duty-paid certificate matched the declaration covering other hot rolled products. Penalty was not warranted where the dispute turned on correlatable description and no penal circumstances were shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>