<?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 (5) TMI 687 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100107</link>
    <description>Denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable because the adverse finding rested on grounds not alleged in the show cause notice. The notice proceeded only on the basis that the invoice-issuing dealers were unregistered, but the adjudicating authority accepted that they were registered and instead rejected credit on different invoice-defect grounds. An adverse order cannot be supported by a new basis outside the notice. The record also showed that the jurisdictional Superintendent had verified the invoices and treated them as modvatable except for one invoice, which was not properly addressed in the impugned order. The assessee therefore succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:23:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 687 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100107</link>
      <description>Denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable because the adverse finding rested on grounds not alleged in the show cause notice. The notice proceeded only on the basis that the invoice-issuing dealers were unregistered, but the adjudicating authority accepted that they were registered and instead rejected credit on different invoice-defect grounds. An adverse order cannot be supported by a new basis outside the notice. The record also showed that the jurisdictional Superintendent had verified the invoices and treated them as modvatable except for one invoice, which was not properly addressed in the impugned order. The assessee therefore succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>