<?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 216 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91344</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the decision disallowing Modvat credit and imposing a penalty due to the incorrect classification of H.R. Sheets in the invoice. It held that the misclassification was a clerical error, as the appellants had correctly declared the sheets under the appropriate heading in their submission. Emphasizing the beneficial nature of Modvat credit, the Tribunal ruled that denial based on a typographical mistake was unjustified. The appeal was allowed without pre-deposit, with the Tribunal distinguishing the case from previous judgments where denial was due to a lack of specific declaration, ultimately granting the Stay Petition in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:32:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 216 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91344</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the decision disallowing Modvat credit and imposing a penalty due to the incorrect classification of H.R. Sheets in the invoice. It held that the misclassification was a clerical error, as the appellants had correctly declared the sheets under the appropriate heading in their submission. Emphasizing the beneficial nature of Modvat credit, the Tribunal ruled that denial based on a typographical mistake was unjustified. The appeal was allowed without pre-deposit, with the Tribunal distinguishing the case from previous judgments where denial was due to a lack of specific declaration, ultimately granting the Stay Petition in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91344</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>