<?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 (3) TMI 669 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97488</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was denied where invoices used to support the claim were found to be fake, not issued by the stated consignor, and bearing non-genuine signatures. The plea that only the date on otherwise genuine invoices had been altered was rejected because the invoices themselves were held not genuine. Taking credit on fabricated documents was treated as a serious breach of the Modvat scheme, so the credit demand and penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:49:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 669 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97488</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was denied where invoices used to support the claim were found to be fake, not issued by the stated consignor, and bearing non-genuine signatures. The plea that only the date on otherwise genuine invoices had been altered was rejected because the invoices themselves were held not genuine. Taking credit on fabricated documents was treated as a serious breach of the Modvat scheme, so the credit demand and penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>