<?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>1999 (12) TMI 637 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98829</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was stated to be unavailable where the claim was supported by an extra copy of the invoice instead of the prescribed duplicate copy, and the invoice omitted the rule number and particulars showing duty payment. The documentary requirements were treated as substantive to the validity of the credit claim, not as mere procedural formalities. On that basis, the deficiency was not regarded as curable, and the credit was said to be inadmissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:04:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135886" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 637 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98829</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was stated to be unavailable where the claim was supported by an extra copy of the invoice instead of the prescribed duplicate copy, and the invoice omitted the rule number and particulars showing duty payment. The documentary requirements were treated as substantive to the validity of the credit claim, not as mere procedural formalities. On that basis, the deficiency was not regarded as curable, and the credit was said to be inadmissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>