<?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>2002 (8) TMI 854 - CEGAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181693</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE could not be denied merely because the input-manufacturer&#039;s invoice did not contain the specific declaration, where the substantive conditions of the notification were otherwise satisfied. The notification&#039;s central declaration treated the specified inputs as deemed duty-paid and allowed credit of that deemed duty to the final-product manufacturer. The invoice declaration requirement was only subordinate and could not defeat the substantive grant. On the facts, the invoices carried endorsements showing discharge of duty liability, so the essential requirement was met and the credit was held admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:13:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 854 - CEGAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181693</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE could not be denied merely because the input-manufacturer&#039;s invoice did not contain the specific declaration, where the substantive conditions of the notification were otherwise satisfied. The notification&#039;s central declaration treated the specified inputs as deemed duty-paid and allowed credit of that deemed duty to the final-product manufacturer. The invoice declaration requirement was only subordinate and could not defeat the substantive grant. On the facts, the invoices carried endorsements showing discharge of duty liability, so the essential requirement was met and the credit was held admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>