<?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 634 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97751</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied where the gate pass description of inputs matched the declaration filed under Rule 57G and the department had earlier accepted similar documents. The matching descriptions showed compliance with the declaration requirement, and prior acceptance of comparable documents supported the assessee&#039;s claim that there was no material discrepancy. On those facts, the technical objection as to description failed, and credit was allowed to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:33:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 634 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97751</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied where the gate pass description of inputs matched the declaration filed under Rule 57G and the department had earlier accepted similar documents. The matching descriptions showed compliance with the declaration requirement, and prior acceptance of comparable documents supported the assessee&#039;s claim that there was no material discrepancy. On those facts, the technical objection as to description failed, and credit was allowed to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>