<?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>2008 (9) TMI 748 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124955</link>
    <description>The substituted explanation in the earlier notification, which expressly included payment by bank draft, was treated as clarificatory rather than as a new substantive restriction. Because the supplier&#039;s receipt of consideration was not disputed, the later amendment was applied to support deemed credit under the earlier notification. The denial of credit was therefore set aside, and the assessee was allowed the benefit of deemed credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:02:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 748 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124955</link>
      <description>The substituted explanation in the earlier notification, which expressly included payment by bank draft, was treated as clarificatory rather than as a new substantive restriction. Because the supplier&#039;s receipt of consideration was not disputed, the later amendment was applied to support deemed credit under the earlier notification. The denial of credit was therefore set aside, and the assessee was allowed the benefit of deemed credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>