<?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 330 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86108</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inputs were transferred from a private bonded customs warehouse under an endorsed ex-bond Bill of Entry rather than a Superintendent&#039;s certificate. The endorsed Bill of Entry was treated as consistent with Board instructions for transfer by the original consignee to another manufacturer, so long as credit had not already been taken or refund claimed. Full clearance from the bonded warehouse under the ex-bond Bill of Entry was treated as materially different from piecemeal removal from an outside godown, and the documentary requirement was held to have been substantially complied with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:53:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 330 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86108</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inputs were transferred from a private bonded customs warehouse under an endorsed ex-bond Bill of Entry rather than a Superintendent&#039;s certificate. The endorsed Bill of Entry was treated as consistent with Board instructions for transfer by the original consignee to another manufacturer, so long as credit had not already been taken or refund claimed. Full clearance from the bonded warehouse under the ex-bond Bill of Entry was treated as materially different from piecemeal removal from an outside godown, and the documentary requirement was held to have been substantially complied with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>