<?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>2001 (7) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50598</link>
    <description>Goods used in the manufacturing process with a functional nexus to production, including cables, pollution-control parts, kiln-operation equipment and fluid couplings, were treated as capital goods eligible for Modvat credit, while the claim failed where the supporting document requirements were not met. Endorsed invoices were not recognised as valid support under the scheme, so credit based solely on such invoices was disallowed; endorsed gate passes were accepted for the relevant pre-1-4-1994 period if otherwise within time. Credit on an extra copy of the invoice was also rejected because the rules did not permit it and the defect went to admissibility, not mere procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:37:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50598</link>
      <description>Goods used in the manufacturing process with a functional nexus to production, including cables, pollution-control parts, kiln-operation equipment and fluid couplings, were treated as capital goods eligible for Modvat credit, while the claim failed where the supporting document requirements were not met. Endorsed invoices were not recognised as valid support under the scheme, so credit based solely on such invoices was disallowed; endorsed gate passes were accepted for the relevant pre-1-4-1994 period if otherwise within time. Credit on an extra copy of the invoice was also rejected because the rules did not permit it and the defect went to admissibility, not mere procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>