<?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>2002 (1) TMI 977 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103868</link>
    <description>Modvat credit may be denied where delivery challan-cum-invoices issued from a depot do not meet mandatory documentary requirements. Credit was rejected because the depot was unregistered, the invoices lacked pre-authentication, and prescribed particulars under Rule 57GG and applicable notifications were incomplete; these were material defects rather than curable technical lapses. Penalty was nevertheless deleted because the documentary deficiencies, on the recorded facts, provided insufficient justification for penal action. The appeal therefore failed on entitlement to credit but succeeded to the limited extent of removing the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:15:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 977 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103868</link>
      <description>Modvat credit may be denied where delivery challan-cum-invoices issued from a depot do not meet mandatory documentary requirements. Credit was rejected because the depot was unregistered, the invoices lacked pre-authentication, and prescribed particulars under Rule 57GG and applicable notifications were incomplete; these were material defects rather than curable technical lapses. Penalty was nevertheless deleted because the documentary deficiencies, on the recorded facts, provided insufficient justification for penal action. The appeal therefore failed on entitlement to credit but succeeded to the limited extent of removing the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>