<?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>1999 (3) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90034</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held inadmissible where the invoices did not show the PLA entry number or other conclusive proof that duty had been paid on the inputs, and no material showed permission for consolidated entries. The required duplicate invoice was also not produced, and an extra copy could not replace the prescribed document. On both grounds, strict documentary compliance was treated as essential for availing credit, and the denial of credit was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 18:55:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90034</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held inadmissible where the invoices did not show the PLA entry number or other conclusive proof that duty had been paid on the inputs, and no material showed permission for consolidated entries. The required duplicate invoice was also not produced, and an extra copy could not replace the prescribed document. On both grounds, strict documentary compliance was treated as essential for availing credit, and the denial of credit was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>