<?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 (1) TMI 255 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85409</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was said not to be deniable solely because imported inputs were supported by endorsed Bills of Entry rather than the prescribed certificate. Endorsements on the Bills of Entry, together with the jurisdictional Superintendent&#039;s certificate, prima facie indicated that the goods had not been received by the original importers and that no Modvat credit had been taken by them. Because the transfer of the goods, the claim of return of loaned materials, and the supporting correspondence needed fuller factual verification, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of eligibility after the appellant produced further evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:27:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 255 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85409</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was said not to be deniable solely because imported inputs were supported by endorsed Bills of Entry rather than the prescribed certificate. Endorsements on the Bills of Entry, together with the jurisdictional Superintendent&#039;s certificate, prima facie indicated that the goods had not been received by the original importers and that no Modvat credit had been taken by them. Because the transfer of the goods, the claim of return of loaned materials, and the supporting correspondence needed fuller factual verification, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of eligibility after the appellant produced further evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>