<?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 (5) TMI 434 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122030</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was admissible on dealer-issued invoices endorsed from the manufacturer&#039;s invoices where the invoices contained the particulars required by Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.). The Tribunal treated such dealer invoices as valid documents for Modvat purposes at the relevant time and held that a separate appointment of the dealer by the manufacturer was not necessary on the facts. The disallowance of credit was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:53:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 434 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122030</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was admissible on dealer-issued invoices endorsed from the manufacturer&#039;s invoices where the invoices contained the particulars required by Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.). The Tribunal treated such dealer invoices as valid documents for Modvat purposes at the relevant time and held that a separate appointment of the dealer by the manufacturer was not necessary on the facts. The disallowance of credit was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>