<?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>2010 (4) TMI 1046 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173274</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit under Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 may be taken on the basis of a manufacturer&#039;s invoice where the recipient has made reasonable verification under Rule 9(3) that the excise duty shown in the document was paid. Where the duty noted in the invoice had in fact been paid, receipt of the capital goods was undisputed, and there was no evidence of excess credit or of goods outside duty-paid documents, credit could not be denied merely because the invoice-issuing supplier was alleged not to have manufactured the goods. The alleged absence of manufacture, by itself, was insufficient to defeat credit in those facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 1046 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173274</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit under Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 may be taken on the basis of a manufacturer&#039;s invoice where the recipient has made reasonable verification under Rule 9(3) that the excise duty shown in the document was paid. Where the duty noted in the invoice had in fact been paid, receipt of the capital goods was undisputed, and there was no evidence of excess credit or of goods outside duty-paid documents, credit could not be denied merely because the invoice-issuing supplier was alleged not to have manufactured the goods. The alleged absence of manufacture, by itself, was insufficient to defeat credit in those facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>