<?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>2005 (4) TMI 427 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116001</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of Modvat credit on the original copy of the invoice and on C.I. Scrap as capital goods. The appellants failed to prove the loss of the duplicate copy of the invoice or the incorrect classification of C.I. Scrap. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and maintained the penalty of Rs. 30,000 for wrongly availing Modvat credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:46:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 427 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116001</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of Modvat credit on the original copy of the invoice and on C.I. Scrap as capital goods. The appellants failed to prove the loss of the duplicate copy of the invoice or the incorrect classification of C.I. Scrap. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and maintained the penalty of Rs. 30,000 for wrongly availing Modvat credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>