<?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>2017 (7) TMI 15 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344903</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible where the duty-paid nature of inputs and their receipt in the factory were established, and defects in invoices or accompanying papers were only procedural or curable. Credit was denied where essential particulars were missing, the supplier&#039;s duty payment and debit details were not furnished, the claimant was not the consignee, endorsed invoices were relied upon outside the applicable regime, the prescribed procedure was not followed, or the documents were not covered by Rule 57G. The dispute was regarded as one of interpretation of credit provisions, so penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=478391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 15 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344903</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible where the duty-paid nature of inputs and their receipt in the factory were established, and defects in invoices or accompanying papers were only procedural or curable. Credit was denied where essential particulars were missing, the supplier&#039;s duty payment and debit details were not furnished, the claimant was not the consignee, endorsed invoices were relied upon outside the applicable regime, the prescribed procedure was not followed, or the documents were not covered by Rule 57G. The dispute was regarded as one of interpretation of credit provisions, so penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>