<?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>2003 (12) TMI 106 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52387</link>
    <description>Credit on supplementary invoices was permitted where the supplier later paid additional duty after re-determination of the assessable value, because the credit scheme was intended to follow the actual duty paid on inputs already received. The recipient unit could not be denied additional credit merely on procedural grounds when the governing rules treated supplementary invoices as valid invoices for credit purposes. As no fraud, collusion, suppression, or similar misconduct was alleged, the penalty was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:26:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 106 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52387</link>
      <description>Credit on supplementary invoices was permitted where the supplier later paid additional duty after re-determination of the assessable value, because the credit scheme was intended to follow the actual duty paid on inputs already received. The recipient unit could not be denied additional credit merely on procedural grounds when the governing rules treated supplementary invoices as valid invoices for credit purposes. As no fraud, collusion, suppression, or similar misconduct was alleged, the penalty was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>