<?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 (12) TMI 440 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101880</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible where the supporting Bills of Entry were either restructured or endorsed, because earlier Tribunal decisions had already accepted credit on those documents. The commentary follows those precedents and records that credit on restructured Bills of Entry was admissible, and the same position applied to endorsed Bills of Entry. On that basis, the disallowance of Modvat credit was set aside and consequential relief was granted according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:59:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 440 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101880</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible where the supporting Bills of Entry were either restructured or endorsed, because earlier Tribunal decisions had already accepted credit on those documents. The commentary follows those precedents and records that credit on restructured Bills of Entry was admissible, and the same position applied to endorsed Bills of Entry. On that basis, the disallowance of Modvat credit was set aside and consequential relief was granted according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>