<?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>1997 (12) TMI 421 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90446</link>
    <description>Modvat credit cannot be denied where the claim is supported by substantive compliance and only a technical or procedural defect is present. A clerical excess-duty payment corrected promptly before filing the RT 12 return, and brought to the competent authority&#039;s notice, was treated as a rectifiable error, so the adjustment was allowed. Credit was also upheld on a duplicate depot-clearance invoice bearing the prescribed transport-copy endorsement and attested manufacturer&#039;s stamp, because duty-paid goods were received in the factory and eligibility as inputs was undisputed; pre-authentication objections or suspicion of later authentication could not defeat the claim. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 13 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:27:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 421 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90446</link>
      <description>Modvat credit cannot be denied where the claim is supported by substantive compliance and only a technical or procedural defect is present. A clerical excess-duty payment corrected promptly before filing the RT 12 return, and brought to the competent authority&#039;s notice, was treated as a rectifiable error, so the adjustment was allowed. Credit was also upheld on a duplicate depot-clearance invoice bearing the prescribed transport-copy endorsement and attested manufacturer&#039;s stamp, because duty-paid goods were received in the factory and eligibility as inputs was undisputed; pre-authentication objections or suspicion of later authentication could not defeat the claim. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>