<?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 (11) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88049</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could be denied where the assessee used a duplicate invoice in white colour instead of the prescribed pink colour, because the notification imposed an express procedural condition governing the form of invoice required for availing credit. The defect was treated as non-compliance with a mandatory requirement, not as a mere irregularity, so the credit disallowance was sustained. Penalty, however, was not warranted on the facts, as the dispute arose during the transition to the new procedure and the conduct did not justify punitive action. The result was that credit was denied but the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:00:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88049</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could be denied where the assessee used a duplicate invoice in white colour instead of the prescribed pink colour, because the notification imposed an express procedural condition governing the form of invoice required for availing credit. The defect was treated as non-compliance with a mandatory requirement, not as a mere irregularity, so the credit disallowance was sustained. Penalty, however, was not warranted on the facts, as the dispute arose during the transition to the new procedure and the conduct did not justify punitive action. The result was that credit was denied but the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>