<?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 (2) TMI 457 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95927</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was available only on the prescribed duplicate invoice, not on a mere photocopy. The assessee produced a photocopy instead of the original or duplicate invoice, and that document was held insufficient to support credit. Relying on prior tribunal view, the article states that an extra or photocopied invoice cannot be treated as valid evidence for availing Modvat credit, so the credit claim failed and the Revenue succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:39:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 457 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95927</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was available only on the prescribed duplicate invoice, not on a mere photocopy. The assessee produced a photocopy instead of the original or duplicate invoice, and that document was held insufficient to support credit. Relying on prior tribunal view, the article states that an extra or photocopied invoice cannot be treated as valid evidence for availing Modvat credit, so the credit claim failed and the Revenue succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>