<?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 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88907</link>
    <description>Documents sought to be produced in a miscellaneous application were accepted as additional evidence because they were vital to establish that the traders from whom inputs were purchased were in existence. The explanation for earlier non-production was accepted on the basis that the documents had to be procured from different sources and from traders located outside the State. The documents were brought on record and the miscellaneous application was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:29:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88907</link>
      <description>Documents sought to be produced in a miscellaneous application were accepted as additional evidence because they were vital to establish that the traders from whom inputs were purchased were in existence. The explanation for earlier non-production was accepted on the basis that the documents had to be procured from different sources and from traders located outside the State. The documents were brought on record and the miscellaneous application was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>