<?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 (9) TMI 361 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97298</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was denied because the documents relied on were not shown to be genuine duty-paying invoices issued by TISCO. The Tribunal found that the papers bore the appellant&#039;s own name and signature of its authorised signatory, while the consignor and consignee entries did not establish external issuance. The appellant&#039;s claim that it operated as separate conversion-agent and manufacturing entities was rejected, and no supporting authority, contract, or input declaration was produced. On that basis, the credit claim lacked legal foundation and the denial of credit, together with the penalty, was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:11:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 361 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97298</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was denied because the documents relied on were not shown to be genuine duty-paying invoices issued by TISCO. The Tribunal found that the papers bore the appellant&#039;s own name and signature of its authorised signatory, while the consignor and consignee entries did not establish external issuance. The appellant&#039;s claim that it operated as separate conversion-agent and manufacturing entities was rejected, and no supporting authority, contract, or input declaration was produced. On that basis, the credit claim lacked legal foundation and the denial of credit, together with the penalty, was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>