<?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 (7) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89132</link>
    <description>Where Modvat credit depends on a prescribed statutory invoice format, non-compliance with mandatory invoice colour requirements and omission of R.G. 23D particulars validly barred credit, and the defect was not cured by later insertion of details. By contrast, a bill of entry could not be rejected without considering that the imported consignment had been bifurcated, with part cleared on payment of customs duty and CVD. The lower authorities were required to verify the duty-paid clearance for the relevant portion before denying credit. Credit was upheld as denied on the invoice issue, while the bill of entry issue was remanded for factual verification and possible grant of credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:20:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89132</link>
      <description>Where Modvat credit depends on a prescribed statutory invoice format, non-compliance with mandatory invoice colour requirements and omission of R.G. 23D particulars validly barred credit, and the defect was not cured by later insertion of details. By contrast, a bill of entry could not be rejected without considering that the imported consignment had been bifurcated, with part cleared on payment of customs duty and CVD. The lower authorities were required to verify the duty-paid clearance for the relevant portion before denying credit. Credit was upheld as denied on the invoice issue, while the bill of entry issue was remanded for factual verification and possible grant of credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>