<?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>2015 (4) TMI 1101 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181933</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit on duty-paid inputs accrues when duty is paid and the inputs are received in the factory; procedural entries under Rule 57G cannot extinguish that substantive entitlement. RG-23A Part I was sufficient to evidence crystallisation of the credit right, and the later Part II entry did not control whether credit had arisen. Credit could not be denied merely because the Part II entry was made beyond six months, since a procedural lapse cannot defeat a valid substantive right under the scheme. The Tribunal&#039;s denial of MODVAT credit was set aside and the assessee&#039;s entitlement was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 May 2016 17:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1101 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181933</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit on duty-paid inputs accrues when duty is paid and the inputs are received in the factory; procedural entries under Rule 57G cannot extinguish that substantive entitlement. RG-23A Part I was sufficient to evidence crystallisation of the credit right, and the later Part II entry did not control whether credit had arisen. Credit could not be denied merely because the Part II entry was made beyond six months, since a procedural lapse cannot defeat a valid substantive right under the scheme. The Tribunal&#039;s denial of MODVAT credit was set aside and the assessee&#039;s entitlement was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>