<?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 (5) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85478</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the inputs were supported by a Superintendent of Central Excise certificate instead of gate passes where receipt and use of the inputs in the factory were undisputed. The Tribunal treated the certificate as sufficient compliance for claiming credit and held that the absence of gate passes did not, in those facts, defeat the claim. The Superintendent&#039;s certificate was therefore accepted as adequate support for Modvat credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:33:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85478</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the inputs were supported by a Superintendent of Central Excise certificate instead of gate passes where receipt and use of the inputs in the factory were undisputed. The Tribunal treated the certificate as sufficient compliance for claiming credit and held that the absence of gate passes did not, in those facts, defeat the claim. The Superintendent&#039;s certificate was therefore accepted as adequate support for Modvat credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>