<?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 422 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109925</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was not admissible on a photocopy of the triplicate invoice because the credit procedure under Rule 57G(3) read with Rule 52A required the prescribed original or duplicate invoice copies. Rule 57G(6) allowed use of the original copy only where the duplicate was lost in transit and that loss was proved to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The rules did not permit reliance on a triplicate copy or its photocopy, and the denial of credit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:23:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 422 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109925</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was not admissible on a photocopy of the triplicate invoice because the credit procedure under Rule 57G(3) read with Rule 52A required the prescribed original or duplicate invoice copies. Rule 57G(6) allowed use of the original copy only where the duplicate was lost in transit and that loss was proved to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The rules did not permit reliance on a triplicate copy or its photocopy, and the denial of credit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>