<?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 (2) TMI 65 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1461</link>
    <description>Credit on capital goods was held admissible where the goods were duty paid, received in the factory and installed for expansion of the unit. The absence of the assessee&#039;s name on the invoices, by itself, was treated as insufficient to deny credit when the documents showed the goods were on account of the assessee and bore the factory address. On those facts, the documentary objection raised in the show-cause notice failed, and denial of credit was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 65 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1461</link>
      <description>Credit on capital goods was held admissible where the goods were duty paid, received in the factory and installed for expansion of the unit. The absence of the assessee&#039;s name on the invoices, by itself, was treated as insufficient to deny credit when the documents showed the goods were on account of the assessee and bore the factory address. On those facts, the documentary objection raised in the show-cause notice failed, and denial of credit was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>