<?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 (1) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88743</link>
    <description>Disallowance of Modvat credit turned on the treatment of original duty-paying documents, including the transporter&#039;s copy of invoices, and alleged non-declaration of certain inputs and capital goods. The record showed that the adjudicating authority had not clearly dealt with the invoices produced by the appellants and had proceeded on the assumption that they were not produced at the time of defacement. No finding was also recorded on the denial of credit for conveyor belts, welding electrodes and M.S. rounds, despite confirmation of demand. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:19:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88743</link>
      <description>Disallowance of Modvat credit turned on the treatment of original duty-paying documents, including the transporter&#039;s copy of invoices, and alleged non-declaration of certain inputs and capital goods. The record showed that the adjudicating authority had not clearly dealt with the invoices produced by the appellants and had proceeded on the assumption that they were not produced at the time of defacement. No finding was also recorded on the denial of credit for conveyor belts, welding electrodes and M.S. rounds, despite confirmation of demand. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>