<?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 (10) TMI 829 - CEGAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103736</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied solely because it was taken on miscellaneous charge documents issued by Customs House instead of the prescribed documents. The operative question was whether the inputs and duty payments were capable of verification under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which permits adjustment where duty already taken as credit is later varied. The matter required factual re-examination to confirm whether the inputs were covered by the relevant Bills of Entry and whether the credit amount was properly reflected in the RG-23A Part II Register. Credit was therefore not finally disallowed and the issue was remitted for fresh verification of eligibility and quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:00:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 829 - CEGAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103736</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied solely because it was taken on miscellaneous charge documents issued by Customs House instead of the prescribed documents. The operative question was whether the inputs and duty payments were capable of verification under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which permits adjustment where duty already taken as credit is later varied. The matter required factual re-examination to confirm whether the inputs were covered by the relevant Bills of Entry and whether the credit amount was properly reflected in the RG-23A Part II Register. Credit was therefore not finally disallowed and the issue was remitted for fresh verification of eligibility and quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>