<?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 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89407</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could be denied where invoices did not bear the mandatory printed serial numbers required to run through the full financial year. The rule distinguished between mere marking and the specific statutory requirement of printing, and rubber-stamped serial numbers were held not to satisfy that condition. The requirement was treated as mandatory, so the invoices failed to comply with Rule 57GG(5) and the denial of Modvat credit was upheld against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:30:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89407</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could be denied where invoices did not bear the mandatory printed serial numbers required to run through the full financial year. The rule distinguished between mere marking and the specific statutory requirement of printing, and rubber-stamped serial numbers were held not to satisfy that condition. The requirement was treated as mandatory, so the invoices failed to comply with Rule 57GG(5) and the denial of Modvat credit was upheld against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>