<?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 (10) TMI 312 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87980</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was admissible where the recipient established through sale orders, delivery challans, invoices and the manufacturer&#039;s certificate that the goods actually received were angles as declared, despite gate passes describing them as black steel scrap. The discrepancy was treated as a classification error at the supplier&#039;s end, and the fact that the goods were received and used in manufacture supported credit. Denial of credit to the recipient was not justified on the ground of non-declaration of scrap as an input; any correction had to be pursued under Rule 57E at the supplier&#039;s end. The contrary precedent was distinguished on facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:29:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 312 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87980</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was admissible where the recipient established through sale orders, delivery challans, invoices and the manufacturer&#039;s certificate that the goods actually received were angles as declared, despite gate passes describing them as black steel scrap. The discrepancy was treated as a classification error at the supplier&#039;s end, and the fact that the goods were received and used in manufacture supported credit. Denial of credit to the recipient was not justified on the ground of non-declaration of scrap as an input; any correction had to be pursued under Rule 57E at the supplier&#039;s end. The contrary precedent was distinguished on facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>