<?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 (2) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49799</link>
    <description>Handwritten invoice serial numbering was treated as a technical defect that did not amount to a serious or incurable violation. The Tribunal held that Modvat credit could not be denied solely because the invoice serial number was written by hand rather than printed, where credit was otherwise admissible. The lapse affected form, not the substantive entitlement, so it did not justify refusal of credit on that ground alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:40:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49799</link>
      <description>Handwritten invoice serial numbering was treated as a technical defect that did not amount to a serious or incurable violation. The Tribunal held that Modvat credit could not be denied solely because the invoice serial number was written by hand rather than printed, where credit was otherwise admissible. The lapse affected form, not the substantive entitlement, so it did not justify refusal of credit on that ground alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>