<?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 1080 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107202</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit under the Compounded Levy Scheme depended on invoices showing proper declaration that excise duty had been paid, and where the declaration was defective the authorities could require corroboration from the jurisdictional Range Officer; however, the credit claim could not be rejected without giving the assessee a fair chance to cure the evidentiary defect, so that part was remanded for fresh consideration. A separate denial of credit on the ground that the inputs were manufactured before the suppliers entered the scheme failed for lack of supporting material, and that credit was allowed. The overall result was that the impugned order was set aside in part and the remaining dispute was sent back for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:15:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1080 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107202</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit under the Compounded Levy Scheme depended on invoices showing proper declaration that excise duty had been paid, and where the declaration was defective the authorities could require corroboration from the jurisdictional Range Officer; however, the credit claim could not be rejected without giving the assessee a fair chance to cure the evidentiary defect, so that part was remanded for fresh consideration. A separate denial of credit on the ground that the inputs were manufactured before the suppliers entered the scheme failed for lack of supporting material, and that credit was allowed. The overall result was that the impugned order was set aside in part and the remaining dispute was sent back for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>