<?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>2002 (7) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46475</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on clean-flo and floron gas used to maintain air-conditioning for a filament yarn plant, because Rule 57A allowed credit on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture, whether directly or indirectly and whether or not contained in the final product. The endorsed triplicate copy of the bill of entry was also accepted as a valid duty-paying document, since the relevant circular recognised endorsement on that copy for transfer or diversion of imported goods. Both issues were decided in favour of the assessee, and the Department&#039;s challenge failed; no referable question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:17:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46475</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on clean-flo and floron gas used to maintain air-conditioning for a filament yarn plant, because Rule 57A allowed credit on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture, whether directly or indirectly and whether or not contained in the final product. The endorsed triplicate copy of the bill of entry was also accepted as a valid duty-paying document, since the relevant circular recognised endorsement on that copy for transfer or diversion of imported goods. Both issues were decided in favour of the assessee, and the Department&#039;s challenge failed; no referable question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>