<?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 (4) TMI 614 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104203</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was considered where the description of imported input in the declaration did not exactly match the bill of entry. The difference was limited to the omission of the words &quot;Sand Blasted&quot; from a detailed description of steel strips, and the input was admittedly used in manufacture of the final product. On that footing, the discrepancy was treated as minor and not sufficient to render the declaration ineffective, so credit was not to be denied on this ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:16:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 614 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104203</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was considered where the description of imported input in the declaration did not exactly match the bill of entry. The difference was limited to the omission of the words &quot;Sand Blasted&quot; from a detailed description of steel strips, and the input was admittedly used in manufacture of the final product. On that footing, the discrepancy was treated as minor and not sufficient to render the declaration ineffective, so credit was not to be denied on this ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>