<?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 (6) TMI 513 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173678</link>
    <description>For Modvat credit under Rule 57G, the decisive requirement is proof that the inputs were duty paid and actually received by the claimant for use in the factory. An invoice or dealer-issued document need not be endorsed in the claimant&#039;s name unless the rule specifically requires it, and credit cannot be denied merely for a documentary deficiency where duty payment and receipt of inputs are established. The discussion also extends the same principle to invoices issued through dealers in the purchase chain.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 12:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 513 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173678</link>
      <description>For Modvat credit under Rule 57G, the decisive requirement is proof that the inputs were duty paid and actually received by the claimant for use in the factory. An invoice or dealer-issued document need not be endorsed in the claimant&#039;s name unless the rule specifically requires it, and credit cannot be denied merely for a documentary deficiency where duty payment and receipt of inputs are established. The discussion also extends the same principle to invoices issued through dealers in the purchase chain.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>