<?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 (7) TMI 532 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109041</link>
    <description>Rule 57G was read to prevent denial of MODVAT credit for minor procedural defects in the declaration where the inputs were duty-paid and actually used in manufacture. A descriptive variation between &quot;blended lubricating oil&quot; and &quot;anti-static oil&quot; was treated as immaterial because both inputs were used in texturising yarn and the duty payment and end use were not disputed. The Board circular on procedural lapses supported the view that incomplete particulars or similar non-compliance should not defeat credit when substantive conditions are met. Credit was therefore held admissible and the disallowance unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:52:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 532 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109041</link>
      <description>Rule 57G was read to prevent denial of MODVAT credit for minor procedural defects in the declaration where the inputs were duty-paid and actually used in manufacture. A descriptive variation between &quot;blended lubricating oil&quot; and &quot;anti-static oil&quot; was treated as immaterial because both inputs were used in texturising yarn and the duty payment and end use were not disputed. The Board circular on procedural lapses supported the view that incomplete particulars or similar non-compliance should not defeat credit when substantive conditions are met. Credit was therefore held admissible and the disallowance unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>