<?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>2001 (1) TMI 354 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95395</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was treated as available where prescribed documents were substantively valid under the applicable notifications and clarifications. Gate passes issued before 1-4-1994 and endorsed within the permitted period were accepted as supporting documents. Invoices issued by depots and distributors before 12-5-1994 were also recognised for credit where the issuers were eligible and registered as required. Documents addressed to the head office did not defeat credit when receipt of the goods in the factory and their use in manufacture were not in dispute. The overall principle is that procedural features such as endorsement timing, depot or distributor issuance, or addressee details do not override substantive compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:29:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 354 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95395</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was treated as available where prescribed documents were substantively valid under the applicable notifications and clarifications. Gate passes issued before 1-4-1994 and endorsed within the permitted period were accepted as supporting documents. Invoices issued by depots and distributors before 12-5-1994 were also recognised for credit where the issuers were eligible and registered as required. Documents addressed to the head office did not defeat credit when receipt of the goods in the factory and their use in manufacture were not in dispute. The overall principle is that procedural features such as endorsement timing, depot or distributor issuance, or addressee details do not override substantive compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>