<?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 (10) TMI 546 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113185</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules and requirements for taking Modvat credit. The Tribunal held that taking credit on invoices not marked &quot;duplicate&quot; was impermissible as there was no provision for having a copy marked &quot;store copy&quot; to avail Modvat credit. It was emphasized that the document&#039;s status at the time of credit was crucial, and compliance with the law&#039;s provisions was necessary. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order and restored the Additional Commissioner&#039;s order concerning the specific invoice in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 12:14:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 546 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113185</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules and requirements for taking Modvat credit. The Tribunal held that taking credit on invoices not marked &quot;duplicate&quot; was impermissible as there was no provision for having a copy marked &quot;store copy&quot; to avail Modvat credit. It was emphasized that the document&#039;s status at the time of credit was crucial, and compliance with the law&#039;s provisions was necessary. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order and restored the Additional Commissioner&#039;s order concerning the specific invoice in question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>