<?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 (11) TMI 682 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103774</link>
    <description>Under the Modvat scheme, documentary defects in gate passes, invoices, duplicates, and xerox copies may be condoned where receipt of inputs and entitlement to credit are supported by reliable corroborative evidence, including official certification against double availment; credit was therefore accepted on those grounds. Invoices not marked as Original or Duplicate were not finally rejected and were remanded for supplier-side verification. However, credit based on subsequent duty payment by the supplier could not be allowed without the prescribed jurisdictional certificate, because that certification requirement was treated as mandatory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:01:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 682 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103774</link>
      <description>Under the Modvat scheme, documentary defects in gate passes, invoices, duplicates, and xerox copies may be condoned where receipt of inputs and entitlement to credit are supported by reliable corroborative evidence, including official certification against double availment; credit was therefore accepted on those grounds. Invoices not marked as Original or Duplicate were not finally rejected and were remanded for supplier-side verification. However, credit based on subsequent duty payment by the supplier could not be allowed without the prescribed jurisdictional certificate, because that certification requirement was treated as mandatory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>