<?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 (8) TMI 871 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99182</link>
    <description>Duty-paid inputs received directly from the manufacturer under Rule 52A invoices qualify for Modvat credit when they are in fact used in the manufacture of the final product. Naming the Railways&#039; Inspector of Works in the consignee details did not defeat credit because the goods were intended for the assessee&#039;s factory and were actually consumed there. Credit on cement was also wrongly denied, as the manufacturer&#039;s own Calcutta office endorsed the invoices in favour of the assessee, so the transaction was not an impermissible intermediate endorsement. The denial of credit, demand, and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:58:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 871 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99182</link>
      <description>Duty-paid inputs received directly from the manufacturer under Rule 52A invoices qualify for Modvat credit when they are in fact used in the manufacture of the final product. Naming the Railways&#039; Inspector of Works in the consignee details did not defeat credit because the goods were intended for the assessee&#039;s factory and were actually consumed there. Credit on cement was also wrongly denied, as the manufacturer&#039;s own Calcutta office endorsed the invoices in favour of the assessee, so the transaction was not an impermissible intermediate endorsement. The denial of credit, demand, and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>