<?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 (12) TMI 567 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114229</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held admissible where bills of entry were not in the appellant&#039;s name but the inputs were actually received in its factory and used in manufacturing dutiable final products; the appellant&#039;s status as a loan licensee did not defeat entitlement, and the credit was restored. Credit was also allowed on pre-4-7-1994 invoices because they satisfied the then-prevailing documentation requirements under the applicable Modvat scheme and departmental circular. However, credit on an invoice not issued in the appellant&#039;s name and not originally authenticated by the manufacturer was denied, as the document did not validly establish entitlement under the invoice requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 13:34:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 567 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114229</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held admissible where bills of entry were not in the appellant&#039;s name but the inputs were actually received in its factory and used in manufacturing dutiable final products; the appellant&#039;s status as a loan licensee did not defeat entitlement, and the credit was restored. Credit was also allowed on pre-4-7-1994 invoices because they satisfied the then-prevailing documentation requirements under the applicable Modvat scheme and departmental circular. However, credit on an invoice not issued in the appellant&#039;s name and not originally authenticated by the manufacturer was denied, as the document did not validly establish entitlement under the invoice requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>