<?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>2008 (7) TMI 243 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32234</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed as the denial of credit based on lack of invoice endorsement and intimation was deemed unjustified. The court emphasized that procedural formalities should not impede legitimate credit claims when the substance of transactions is evident. The judgment clarified that as long as the receipt and utilization of inputs were not in question, denial of credit solely on technical grounds was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 243 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32234</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed as the denial of credit based on lack of invoice endorsement and intimation was deemed unjustified. The court emphasized that procedural formalities should not impede legitimate credit claims when the substance of transactions is evident. The judgment clarified that as long as the receipt and utilization of inputs were not in question, denial of credit solely on technical grounds was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>