<?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 546 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108416</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held not admissible on an endorsed bill of entry where the endorsement was not made by the importer&#039;s head office in favour of a sub-office or unit. The goods were received on the basis of the endorsed bill of entry, not the commercial invoice, and the matter was treated as covered by the Tribunal&#039;s earlier ruling limiting credit on such documents to endorsements made by head office to its own sub-office or unit. The disallowance was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:46:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 546 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108416</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held not admissible on an endorsed bill of entry where the endorsement was not made by the importer&#039;s head office in favour of a sub-office or unit. The goods were received on the basis of the endorsed bill of entry, not the commercial invoice, and the matter was treated as covered by the Tribunal&#039;s earlier ruling limiting credit on such documents to endorsements made by head office to its own sub-office or unit. The disallowance was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>