<?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 (12) TMI 499 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96288</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on HDPE films and rolls was held inadmissible because the inputs were not covered, specifically or generally, by the declaration in force when received. The attempt to rely on the declared tariff heading failed since the goods did not fall under Heading 3917 at the material time and were instead classifiable under Headings 3920 or 3921. The incorrect classification shown in the supplier&#039;s invoice also defeated the plea that the discrepancy was only a minor variation in description. Credit was therefore not available where both the declaration and the invoice classification were inconsistent with the actual goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:20:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 499 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96288</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on HDPE films and rolls was held inadmissible because the inputs were not covered, specifically or generally, by the declaration in force when received. The attempt to rely on the declared tariff heading failed since the goods did not fall under Heading 3917 at the material time and were instead classifiable under Headings 3920 or 3921. The incorrect classification shown in the supplier&#039;s invoice also defeated the plea that the discrepancy was only a minor variation in description. Credit was therefore not available where both the declaration and the invoice classification were inconsistent with the actual goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>