<?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 (8) TMI 314 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107886</link>
    <description>Modvat credit should not be denied where the goods were duty paid and the processing duty on dyed yarn had been discharged under the relevant notifications. The objection related only to the consignments moving through a processor and the absence of an express provision for that route, but this was treated as a minor procedural lapse rather than a defect affecting substantive eligibility. Endorsement on the mother invoices, the dealer premises functioning as the head office, and the department&#039;s own circular were relied on to support the movement of goods and the taking and passing on of credit. On that basis, denial of credit and the associated penalty were unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:09:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 314 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107886</link>
      <description>Modvat credit should not be denied where the goods were duty paid and the processing duty on dyed yarn had been discharged under the relevant notifications. The objection related only to the consignments moving through a processor and the absence of an express provision for that route, but this was treated as a minor procedural lapse rather than a defect affecting substantive eligibility. Endorsement on the mother invoices, the dealer premises functioning as the head office, and the department&#039;s own circular were relied on to support the movement of goods and the taking and passing on of credit. On that basis, denial of credit and the associated penalty were unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>