<?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 (9) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90607</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was denied because the assessees did not produce the gate pass relied on for credit and failed to furnish reliable evidence that the inputs had actually suffered duty. The certificate produced was not accepted, and the claim remained unsupported by corroborative material establishing both the duty-paying character of the inputs and the validity of the documents. On the same basis, the penalty under the Central Excise Rules was not interfered with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:38:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90607</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was denied because the assessees did not produce the gate pass relied on for credit and failed to furnish reliable evidence that the inputs had actually suffered duty. The certificate produced was not accepted, and the claim remained unsupported by corroborative material establishing both the duty-paying character of the inputs and the validity of the documents. On the same basis, the penalty under the Central Excise Rules was not interfered with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>