<?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 (6) TMI 43 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48806</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57G could not be denied merely because duty-paid glass bottles were not received in their original packing after printing, decoration and repacking by an intermediary. The endorsed gate pass remained a valid duty-paid document where the goods were identifiable and duty payment was undisputed. The requirement of receipt in original packing was treated as relevant, at most, to a second endorsement and not to a first endorsement in favour of the assessee. As the bottles were co-relatable to the endorsed gate passes and had passed through only one intermediary, denial of credit solely for lack of original packing was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:46:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 43 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48806</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57G could not be denied merely because duty-paid glass bottles were not received in their original packing after printing, decoration and repacking by an intermediary. The endorsed gate pass remained a valid duty-paid document where the goods were identifiable and duty payment was undisputed. The requirement of receipt in original packing was treated as relevant, at most, to a second endorsement and not to a first endorsement in favour of the assessee. As the bottles were co-relatable to the endorsed gate passes and had passed through only one intermediary, denial of credit solely for lack of original packing was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>