<?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 (4) TMI 280 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85603</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on bottles purchased through an intermediary on an endorsed gate pass was treated as dependent on strict compliance with the prescribed documentary procedure under the Central Excise Rules. The endorsed gate pass was considered valid for delivery to the original consignee, but further endorsement after the consignment had been broken up and resold was viewed as outside the contemplated procedure, particularly because verification of identity of the goods became difficult once the original consignment was disrupted. Because Tribunal decisions on the same issue were divergent, the matter was not finally decided on entitlement to credit and was referred to the Hon&#039;ble President for constitution of a larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:13:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 280 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85603</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on bottles purchased through an intermediary on an endorsed gate pass was treated as dependent on strict compliance with the prescribed documentary procedure under the Central Excise Rules. The endorsed gate pass was considered valid for delivery to the original consignee, but further endorsement after the consignment had been broken up and resold was viewed as outside the contemplated procedure, particularly because verification of identity of the goods became difficult once the original consignment was disrupted. Because Tribunal decisions on the same issue were divergent, the matter was not finally decided on entitlement to credit and was referred to the Hon&#039;ble President for constitution of a larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>