<?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 (11) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50905</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on a photocopy of the triplicate bill of entry was not admissible because the scheme allowed an alternative document only after the assessee proved loss of the prescribed original to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector. That requirement was mandatory, not a mere procedural formality, and credit taken before timely intimation or proof of loss could be disallowed. The adjudication also did not go beyond the show cause notice, because the notice had already challenged the admissibility of the documents used for credit and the alleged contravention of the Modvat rules. The impugned order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:49:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50905</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on a photocopy of the triplicate bill of entry was not admissible because the scheme allowed an alternative document only after the assessee proved loss of the prescribed original to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector. That requirement was mandatory, not a mere procedural formality, and credit taken before timely intimation or proof of loss could be disallowed. The adjudication also did not go beyond the show cause notice, because the notice had already challenged the admissibility of the documents used for credit and the alleged contravention of the Modvat rules. The impugned order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>