<?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 (7) TMI 515 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95680</link>
    <description>Entitlement to Notification No. 202/88 benefit and deemed Modvat credit depended on proof that the MS scrap used as re-rolling material had suffered duty. The supplier&#039;s bills and gate passes did not show any particulars of duty payment, so no presumption of duty-paid status arose and the burden remained on the appellant to prove it. In the absence of such evidence, the refund claim was not maintainable. The denial of refund was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:16:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 515 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95680</link>
      <description>Entitlement to Notification No. 202/88 benefit and deemed Modvat credit depended on proof that the MS scrap used as re-rolling material had suffered duty. The supplier&#039;s bills and gate passes did not show any particulars of duty payment, so no presumption of duty-paid status arose and the burden remained on the appellant to prove it. In the absence of such evidence, the refund claim was not maintainable. The denial of refund was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>