<?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>1997 (1) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86342</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied on gate passes and endorsed gate passes where the goods were duty paid, the inputs were duly declared and used for the declared final product, and the procedural requirements were substantially satisfied. Rule 52A and the related notifications were treated as facilitative provisions, read with the basic Modvat scheme rather than as rigid technical bars. On the undisputed facts, denial of credit on technical grounds was unwarranted, although the department retained power to verify the genuineness of the documents and endorsements if necessary. The appellant was therefore entitled to Modvat credit, subject to such verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:05:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86342</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied on gate passes and endorsed gate passes where the goods were duty paid, the inputs were duly declared and used for the declared final product, and the procedural requirements were substantially satisfied. Rule 52A and the related notifications were treated as facilitative provisions, read with the basic Modvat scheme rather than as rigid technical bars. On the undisputed facts, denial of credit on technical grounds was unwarranted, although the department retained power to verify the genuineness of the documents and endorsements if necessary. The appellant was therefore entitled to Modvat credit, subject to such verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>