<?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 (11) TMI 780 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98387</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was discussed as admissible where duty-paid inputs were supported by depot invoices and related records that substantially matched the original gate passes, and the transition to the invoice system did not by itself create substantive illegality. The note also states that limitation depends on proof of suppression or deliberate evasion; where the department had prior knowledge of depot operations, registrations, and routine record scrutiny, the extended period could not be invoked. Personal penalty was treated as unsustainable once the credit issue and limitation question were resolved in the assessee&#039;s favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:28:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 780 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98387</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was discussed as admissible where duty-paid inputs were supported by depot invoices and related records that substantially matched the original gate passes, and the transition to the invoice system did not by itself create substantive illegality. The note also states that limitation depends on proof of suppression or deliberate evasion; where the department had prior knowledge of depot operations, registrations, and routine record scrutiny, the extended period could not be invoked. Personal penalty was treated as unsustainable once the credit issue and limitation question were resolved in the assessee&#039;s favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>