<?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>2003 (1) TMI 513 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107681</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied for a transitional procedural lapse where the assessee relied on a superintendent-countersigned certificate shortly after the amendment requiring a supplementary invoice. The duty-paid character of the inputs was undisputed, and the change in procedure had not yet fully reached trade practice or departmental implementation. In these exceptional circumstances, the tribunal treated the deviation as unintentional and held that a strict approach to the changed documentation requirement was unwarranted. The assessee was therefore entitled to the credit, and denial based only on the procedural defect was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:48:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 513 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107681</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied for a transitional procedural lapse where the assessee relied on a superintendent-countersigned certificate shortly after the amendment requiring a supplementary invoice. The duty-paid character of the inputs was undisputed, and the change in procedure had not yet fully reached trade practice or departmental implementation. In these exceptional circumstances, the tribunal treated the deviation as unintentional and held that a strict approach to the changed documentation requirement was unwarranted. The assessee was therefore entitled to the credit, and denial based only on the procedural defect was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>