<?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 (11) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86056</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on the strength of the original invoice where the duplicate transporter copy was lost, because the dispute concerned only the form of and not receipt or use of goods. The Tribunal treated Notification No. 23/94-C.E. (N.T.), issued after the credit scheme had just begun, as a clarificatory measure that made explicit what was already implicit in the procedural regime. On that basis, the department&#039;s objection failed and credit could be taken on original invoices for the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:50:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86056</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on the strength of the original invoice where the duplicate transporter copy was lost, because the dispute concerned only the form of and not receipt or use of goods. The Tribunal treated Notification No. 23/94-C.E. (N.T.), issued after the credit scheme had just begun, as a clarificatory measure that made explicit what was already implicit in the procedural regime. On that basis, the department&#039;s objection failed and credit could be taken on original invoices for the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>