<?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 (10) TMI 212 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4090</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was allowable where the assessee established receipt and use of inputs through contemporaneous records, even though the RG23A Part I register was not maintained. Stock register entries, input invoices, original cardex records, declarations and material receipt notes were treated as sufficient evidence to support the credit claim, and the HC found no error in that conclusion. The absence of the RG23A register did not by itself defeat entitlement to Modvat credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 212 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4090</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was allowable where the assessee established receipt and use of inputs through contemporaneous records, even though the RG23A Part I register was not maintained. Stock register entries, input invoices, original cardex records, declarations and material receipt notes were treated as sufficient evidence to support the credit claim, and the HC found no error in that conclusion. The absence of the RG23A register did not by itself defeat entitlement to Modvat credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>