<?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>2006 (11) TMI 502 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121084</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty demand and penalty imposition, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment clarified that payment by the appellant as per the invoice suffices for credit, even if the supplier later pays the duty directly. The importance of documentary evidence and certification in resolving disputes over duty payment and Modvat credit entitlement was emphasized.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:44:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 502 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121084</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty demand and penalty imposition, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment clarified that payment by the appellant as per the invoice suffices for credit, even if the supplier later pays the duty directly. The importance of documentary evidence and certification in resolving disputes over duty payment and Modvat credit entitlement was emphasized.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>