<?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>2018 (2) TMI 816 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355395</link>
    <description>The High Court quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing Cenvat credit based on photocopies of invoices. The Court found that Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules did not explicitly prohibit availing credit based on photocopies, especially when the invoice contents were undisputed. The Court emphasized the legality of availing Cenvat credit based on photocopies and the evidence of duty payment provided, ruling in favor of the petitioner and declaring the impugned order unsustainable in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:34:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 816 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355395</link>
      <description>The High Court quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing Cenvat credit based on photocopies of invoices. The Court found that Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules did not explicitly prohibit availing credit based on photocopies, especially when the invoice contents were undisputed. The Court emphasized the legality of availing Cenvat credit based on photocopies and the evidence of duty payment provided, ruling in favor of the petitioner and declaring the impugned order unsustainable in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>