<?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 (4) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88841</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was available where duty-paid inputs were covered by an endorsed bill of entry treated as a duty-paying document. The requirement under Rule 57G was satisfied because the inputs were accompanied by the prescribed duty-paying document, and the Tribunal followed its earlier orders on the same point. On that basis, credit could not be denied merely because the bill of entry was endorsed, and the assessee was held entitled to the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:48:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88841</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was available where duty-paid inputs were covered by an endorsed bill of entry treated as a duty-paying document. The requirement under Rule 57G was satisfied because the inputs were accompanied by the prescribed duty-paying document, and the Tribunal followed its earlier orders on the same point. On that basis, credit could not be denied merely because the bill of entry was endorsed, and the assessee was held entitled to the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>