<?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 (2) TMI 203 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90870</link>
    <description>Modvat credit cannot be denied where duty-paid inputs were admittedly received in the factory and used in manufacture, even if the invoices or gate passes contained technical defects such as late endorsement, missing pre-printed serial numbers, lack of pre-authentication, use of original copies, or dealer-side irregularities. Procedural lapses, especially during a transitional period with relaxed requirements, were treated as curable and insufficient to defeat substantive credit when duty payment and receipt of goods were not disputed. The same reasoning meant that such documentary deficiencies did not justify penalties against the recipient, and any separate doubt about duty payment had to be pursued through demand proceedings rather than rejection of credit on technical grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:11:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 203 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90870</link>
      <description>Modvat credit cannot be denied where duty-paid inputs were admittedly received in the factory and used in manufacture, even if the invoices or gate passes contained technical defects such as late endorsement, missing pre-printed serial numbers, lack of pre-authentication, use of original copies, or dealer-side irregularities. Procedural lapses, especially during a transitional period with relaxed requirements, were treated as curable and insufficient to defeat substantive credit when duty payment and receipt of goods were not disputed. The same reasoning meant that such documentary deficiencies did not justify penalties against the recipient, and any separate doubt about duty payment had to be pursued through demand proceedings rather than rejection of credit on technical grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>