<?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 (6) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88893</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because some invoice particulars were supplied later, where the remaining required details were already available and the defect was subsequently rectified. The authorities cited by the Revenue were distinguished because they involved continuing defects or a different legal setting. On the facts, the later furnishing of the missing particulars cured the omission, so denial of credit was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:02:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88893</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because some invoice particulars were supplied later, where the remaining required details were already available and the defect was subsequently rectified. The authorities cited by the Revenue were distinguished because they involved continuing defects or a different legal setting. On the facts, the later furnishing of the missing particulars cured the omission, so denial of credit was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>