<?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 (7) TMI 328 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85684</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible on pre-1-4-1994 gate passes and related documents where subsequent endorsements, subsidiary gate passes, or depot/dealer certification were completed and credit was taken within the prescribed time. Where photocopies did not clearly establish the endorsement dates, the relevant entries required verification from original records before entitlement could be confirmed. Credit was denied on invoices that did not contain the particulars required by Notification No. 15/94, because the prescribed documentary conditions were not satisfied on the face of the documents. The appellate result was therefore mixed, with allowance for eligible documents, remand for factual verification, and disallowance of defective invoices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 15:24:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 328 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85684</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible on pre-1-4-1994 gate passes and related documents where subsequent endorsements, subsidiary gate passes, or depot/dealer certification were completed and credit was taken within the prescribed time. Where photocopies did not clearly establish the endorsement dates, the relevant entries required verification from original records before entitlement could be confirmed. Credit was denied on invoices that did not contain the particulars required by Notification No. 15/94, because the prescribed documentary conditions were not satisfied on the face of the documents. The appellate result was therefore mixed, with allowance for eligible documents, remand for factual verification, and disallowance of defective invoices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>