<?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>2013 (9) TMI 215 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236782</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit on inputs stored outside the factory was available only as a conditional relaxation from the normal requirement that inputs be kept inside the factory. The relaxation required prior permission of the jurisdictional Commissioner and credit could be taken only after the entire consignment covered by the invoice had been received inside the factory. Where permission was sought only from the Deputy Commissioner and credit was availed while the inputs still remained outside the factory, the procedure was not complied with and the credit was not admissible. The absence of an allegation that the inputs were not used in manufacture did not cure this mandatory procedural breach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 215 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236782</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit on inputs stored outside the factory was available only as a conditional relaxation from the normal requirement that inputs be kept inside the factory. The relaxation required prior permission of the jurisdictional Commissioner and credit could be taken only after the entire consignment covered by the invoice had been received inside the factory. Where permission was sought only from the Deputy Commissioner and credit was availed while the inputs still remained outside the factory, the procedure was not complied with and the credit was not admissible. The absence of an allegation that the inputs were not used in manufacture did not cure this mandatory procedural breach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>