<?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 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85292</link>
    <description>After amendment of Rule 57G, Modvat credit required production of the original duty-paying document, and a certified copy could be accepted only if it was issued as a specific substitute for the lost gate pass under the applicable circular or procedure. A mere attested photocopy was not enough, because it could not serve as a proper replacement for repeated or unrestricted use. On the facts, the assessee did not show that the copy relied upon had been duly certified in the required manner or that a proper request for such certification had been made, so credit was held inadmissible and the denial of credit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:57:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85292</link>
      <description>After amendment of Rule 57G, Modvat credit required production of the original duty-paying document, and a certified copy could be accepted only if it was issued as a specific substitute for the lost gate pass under the applicable circular or procedure. A mere attested photocopy was not enough, because it could not serve as a proper replacement for repeated or unrestricted use. On the facts, the assessee did not show that the copy relied upon had been duly certified in the required manner or that a proper request for such certification had been made, so credit was held inadmissible and the denial of credit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>