<?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 (2) TMI 265 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86601</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was claimed on the customer copy of invoices issued by SAIL&#039;s stockyard, and the dispute centred on whether the absence of the duplicate copy justified denial of credit. The text states that Rule 57G read with Rule 52A applied to invoices issued by a factory or bonded store room in the normal course, while the invoices here were asserted to have come from a stockyard, not a factory, and the customer copy had been accepted as a duty-paying document. The later notified procedure was also said to support that position. Denial of credit was therefore not upheld on the present facts, and the matter was remanded for limited verification of the source and nature of the invoices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:22:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 265 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86601</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was claimed on the customer copy of invoices issued by SAIL&#039;s stockyard, and the dispute centred on whether the absence of the duplicate copy justified denial of credit. The text states that Rule 57G read with Rule 52A applied to invoices issued by a factory or bonded store room in the normal course, while the invoices here were asserted to have come from a stockyard, not a factory, and the customer copy had been accepted as a duty-paying document. The later notified procedure was also said to support that position. Denial of credit was therefore not upheld on the present facts, and the matter was remanded for limited verification of the source and nature of the invoices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>