<?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 (10) TMI 164 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33722</link>
    <description>Capital goods received and used at Jabalpur for providing output service were supported by duty-paid invoices, and the only objection was that the invoices named the circle headquarter at Bhopal. The discrepancy in invoice name was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive ground to deny credit at the interim stage. On those facts, the appellant established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, and the stay petition was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 164 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33722</link>
      <description>Capital goods received and used at Jabalpur for providing output service were supported by duty-paid invoices, and the only objection was that the invoices named the circle headquarter at Bhopal. The discrepancy in invoice name was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive ground to deny credit at the interim stage. On those facts, the appellant established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, and the stay petition was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>