<?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>2000 (2) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93416</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on the basis of a reconstructed triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry under the Central Excise Rules, where the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on prior Tribunal decisions on the same question. The allowance of credit was also treated as contingent on verification of the requisite documents and compliance with the relevant trade notice requirements. No infirmity was found in that approach, and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:05:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93416</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on the basis of a reconstructed triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry under the Central Excise Rules, where the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on prior Tribunal decisions on the same question. The allowance of credit was also treated as contingent on verification of the requisite documents and compliance with the relevant trade notice requirements. No infirmity was found in that approach, and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>