<?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>1998 (3) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88177</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could be denied where the gate pass did not show the consignee&#039;s name and address, because the relevant rules and prescribed GP-1 format required a proper duty-paying document to contain those particulars. The earlier order was treated as a straightforward application of the statutory requirements to the facts, not as the determination of any debatable legal issue. On that basis, no referable question of law arose for reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:21:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88177</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could be denied where the gate pass did not show the consignee&#039;s name and address, because the relevant rules and prescribed GP-1 format required a proper duty-paying document to contain those particulars. The earlier order was treated as a straightforward application of the statutory requirements to the facts, not as the determination of any debatable legal issue. On that basis, no referable question of law arose for reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>