<?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>2003 (3) TMI 741 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189625</link>
    <description>Modvat credit of CVD was held admissible where the import and duty payment had been verified by the Customs House, because entitlement was established on merits despite production of only a xerox copy of the duplicate bill of entry. Denial of credit on that ground alone was treated as unduly technical, and a reconstructed duplicate or its verified equivalent was considered sufficient to prove the claim. The assessee was therefore entitled to the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:46:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 741 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189625</link>
      <description>Modvat credit of CVD was held admissible where the import and duty payment had been verified by the Customs House, because entitlement was established on merits despite production of only a xerox copy of the duplicate bill of entry. Denial of credit on that ground alone was treated as unduly technical, and a reconstructed duplicate or its verified equivalent was considered sufficient to prove the claim. The assessee was therefore entitled to the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>