<?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 (6) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85491</link>
    <description>Rule 57G(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed Modvat credit on the original invoice where the duplicate copy was lost in transit, subject to the Assistant Collector being satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. The provision required disclosure of relevant facts and bona fides, not proof as in a penal proceeding, and the authority had to consider whether the loss was genuine and whether misuse was likely. On the stated facts, supporting declarations from the transporter and driver and the lodging of an FIR established bona fides, with no suspicious material indicating misuse. Credit on the original invoice was therefore allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:03:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85491</link>
      <description>Rule 57G(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed Modvat credit on the original invoice where the duplicate copy was lost in transit, subject to the Assistant Collector being satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. The provision required disclosure of relevant facts and bona fides, not proof as in a penal proceeding, and the authority had to consider whether the loss was genuine and whether misuse was likely. On the stated facts, supporting declarations from the transporter and driver and the lodging of an FIR established bona fides, with no suspicious material indicating misuse. Credit on the original invoice was therefore allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>