<?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 (9) TMI 330 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34235</link>
    <description>Procedural defects in duty-related invoices did not by themselves bar Modvat credit where receipt of inputs and their use in manufacture were established. The rubber-stamped invoice for oil and grease, together with proof of receipt and supplier confirmation, was sufficient, so denial of credit was unsustainable. For furnace oil, lack of pre-authentication and the missing &quot;duplicate for transporter&quot; marking were treated as curable irregularities, and proportionate reversal for township electricity use was accepted, so only the reversed portion remained excluded. The impugned denial was substantially set aside and the penalty was also quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 330 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34235</link>
      <description>Procedural defects in duty-related invoices did not by themselves bar Modvat credit where receipt of inputs and their use in manufacture were established. The rubber-stamped invoice for oil and grease, together with proof of receipt and supplier confirmation, was sufficient, so denial of credit was unsustainable. For furnace oil, lack of pre-authentication and the missing &quot;duplicate for transporter&quot; marking were treated as curable irregularities, and proportionate reversal for township electricity use was accepted, so only the reversed portion remained excluded. The impugned denial was substantially set aside and the penalty was also quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>