<?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 599 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103840</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices failed to satisfy prescribed procedural requirements where the inputs were duty paid, received and accounted for in statutory records, and used in manufacture. The invoice defects were treated as technical and rectifiable, and substantial compliance with the Modvat scheme was sufficient to preserve the substantive benefit. Denial of credit was therefore not justified, and the penalty was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:36:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 599 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103840</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices failed to satisfy prescribed procedural requirements where the inputs were duty paid, received and accounted for in statutory records, and used in manufacture. The invoice defects were treated as technical and rectifiable, and substantial compliance with the Modvat scheme was sufficient to preserve the substantive benefit. Denial of credit was therefore not justified, and the penalty was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>