<?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 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50951</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on the basis of the original invoice under Rule 57G(2A) required prior satisfaction by the Assistant Commissioner that the duplicate copy was lost in transit before credit was taken; where that condition was not met, denial of credit was sustained. In the connected matter, the assessee&#039;s claim that permission was sought within the prescribed period and that departmental delay affected the decision could not be resolved on the existing record, so the matter was remanded for fresh factual examination. The outcome was therefore mixed: one denial of credit was upheld, while the other dispute was reopened for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:09:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50951</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on the basis of the original invoice under Rule 57G(2A) required prior satisfaction by the Assistant Commissioner that the duplicate copy was lost in transit before credit was taken; where that condition was not met, denial of credit was sustained. In the connected matter, the assessee&#039;s claim that permission was sought within the prescribed period and that departmental delay affected the decision could not be resolved on the existing record, so the matter was remanded for fresh factual examination. The outcome was therefore mixed: one denial of credit was upheld, while the other dispute was reopened for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>