<?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>2004 (5) TMI 482 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113870</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit was stated to be admissible where invoices contained the supplier&#039;s declaration that duty had been discharged under Rule 96ZP, and such credit could not be denied without examining the relevant factual and legal position. The lower appellate authority was found to have failed to consider the supplier&#039;s duty liability, the effect of the pending dispute, and the assessee&#039;s request to lead evidence. The record therefore required fresh consideration, and the matter was remitted for a new decision after hearing the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 18:24:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 482 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113870</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit was stated to be admissible where invoices contained the supplier&#039;s declaration that duty had been discharged under Rule 96ZP, and such credit could not be denied without examining the relevant factual and legal position. The lower appellate authority was found to have failed to consider the supplier&#039;s duty liability, the effect of the pending dispute, and the assessee&#039;s request to lead evidence. The record therefore required fresh consideration, and the matter was remitted for a new decision after hearing the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>