<?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 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86061</link>
    <description>A gate pass remained an eligible document for Modvat credit under the relevant excise rule even after endorsement more than twice, because endorsement did not alter its character as a gate pass. The administrative endorsement instructions were only facilitative trade measures and had no independent legislative force, so they could not expand or restrict the rule. Credit could not be denied merely on the ground of multiple endorsements where revenue was not prejudiced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:28:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86061</link>
      <description>A gate pass remained an eligible document for Modvat credit under the relevant excise rule even after endorsement more than twice, because endorsement did not alter its character as a gate pass. The administrative endorsement instructions were only facilitative trade measures and had no independent legislative force, so they could not expand or restrict the rule. Credit could not be denied merely on the ground of multiple endorsements where revenue was not prejudiced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>