<?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>2003 (5) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46793</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied on a merely technical objection to invoice particulars where duty payment was established by reliable documentary evidence and the inputs were received and used in manufacture. The Court accepted the supplier&#039;s certificate and the factual finding that the original invoices were mutilated due to a computer problem, and held that the alleged omission in invoice particulars did not make the documents unreliable. It also held that refusal of credit could not rest on the ground that the extra copy of the invoice was not a prescribed document when substantive entitlement was otherwise proved. No referable question of law arose, and the petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:51:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46793</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied on a merely technical objection to invoice particulars where duty payment was established by reliable documentary evidence and the inputs were received and used in manufacture. The Court accepted the supplier&#039;s certificate and the factual finding that the original invoices were mutilated due to a computer problem, and held that the alleged omission in invoice particulars did not make the documents unreliable. It also held that refusal of credit could not rest on the ground that the extra copy of the invoice was not a prescribed document when substantive entitlement was otherwise proved. No referable question of law arose, and the petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>