<?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 (4) TMI 606 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100027</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was denied because the assessee failed to prove compliance with the mandatory documentary condition of filing duplicate invoice copies with the Range Officer. In the absence of evidence showing that the prescribed duplicates had been submitted, or even the date of such filing, the Original Authority&#039;s finding that the documents were not produced was not shown to be erroneous. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore sustained and the demand remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:52:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 606 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100027</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was denied because the assessee failed to prove compliance with the mandatory documentary condition of filing duplicate invoice copies with the Range Officer. In the absence of evidence showing that the prescribed duplicates had been submitted, or even the date of such filing, the Original Authority&#039;s finding that the documents were not produced was not shown to be erroneous. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore sustained and the demand remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>