<?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>2000 (1) TMI 74 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48761</link>
    <description>Dealer registration was treated as a mandatory condition for availing Modvat credit, because the amended scheme used registration to prevent fictitious claims and verify movement of excisable goods. Invoices issued by unregistered dealers were therefore not accepted as valid credit documents. The amended rules also replaced the earlier endorsement practice with a requirement for fresh invoices containing prescribed particulars and supporting records, and endorsed invoices after 1-4-1994 were not recognised as valid. The stated principle was that these requirements were substantive safeguards, not mere procedural formalities, and could not be diluted by prior practice or administrative convenience.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:39:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 74 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48761</link>
      <description>Dealer registration was treated as a mandatory condition for availing Modvat credit, because the amended scheme used registration to prevent fictitious claims and verify movement of excisable goods. Invoices issued by unregistered dealers were therefore not accepted as valid credit documents. The amended rules also replaced the earlier endorsement practice with a requirement for fresh invoices containing prescribed particulars and supporting records, and endorsed invoices after 1-4-1994 were not recognised as valid. The stated principle was that these requirements were substantive safeguards, not mere procedural formalities, and could not be diluted by prior practice or administrative convenience.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>