<?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>2007 (8) TMI 588 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122943</link>
    <description>Cenvat/Modvat credit was admissible only on the invoice copy prescribed by the credit rules, and where the duplicate copy was lost, only the original invoice could be used in the limited manner permitted by those rules. A photocopy or extra copy, including a purported certified copy, did not satisfy the statutory documentation requirement because the Evidence Act could not override the specific fiscal scheme. Credit on such unsupported documents was therefore not admissible, and disallowance of credit was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:56:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 588 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122943</link>
      <description>Cenvat/Modvat credit was admissible only on the invoice copy prescribed by the credit rules, and where the duplicate copy was lost, only the original invoice could be used in the limited manner permitted by those rules. A photocopy or extra copy, including a purported certified copy, did not satisfy the statutory documentation requirement because the Evidence Act could not override the specific fiscal scheme. Credit on such unsupported documents was therefore not admissible, and disallowance of credit was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>