<?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 (7) TMI 422 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), NEW DELH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90725</link>
    <description>Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because invoice particulars are stamped rather than pre-printed where the duty-paid character of the goods is verifiable. Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required field formations to allow credit after such verification, in line with departmental instructions. Substantive entitlement to Modvat credit therefore prevails over a technical defect in invoice format, and rejection of credit on that ground does not sustain the related demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:45:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 422 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), NEW DELH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90725</link>
      <description>Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because invoice particulars are stamped rather than pre-printed where the duty-paid character of the goods is verifiable. Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required field formations to allow credit after such verification, in line with departmental instructions. Substantive entitlement to Modvat credit therefore prevails over a technical defect in invoice format, and rejection of credit on that ground does not sustain the related demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>