<?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>1995 (6) TMI 201 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288395</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit could not be denied solely because the triplicate Bill of Entry was lost, where a duly authenticated certified copy was produced and the prescribed duty-evidencing document remained available for verification. Rule 57G treated the Bill of Entry as a statutory input document, and the record indicated that the first and second copies were with the Department, making verification of the duty-paid nature and identity of the inputs possible. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication after examining the relevant Board instructions, verifying the goods and inputs, and giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:51:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (6) TMI 201 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288395</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit could not be denied solely because the triplicate Bill of Entry was lost, where a duly authenticated certified copy was produced and the prescribed duty-evidencing document remained available for verification. Rule 57G treated the Bill of Entry as a statutory input document, and the record indicated that the first and second copies were with the Department, making verification of the duty-paid nature and identity of the inputs possible. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication after examining the relevant Board instructions, verifying the goods and inputs, and giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>