<?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 (10) TMI 184 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52455</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the duplicate invoice was lost in transit or because prior permission to use the original invoice had not been obtained. The governing rule required only proof of such loss, and credit could be refused only if the Assistant Commissioner found that no loss had occurred. A denial based on the transporter&#039;s alleged failure to take further precautions, or on any supposed need for post facto approval, was not supported by the rule, so the assessee was entitled to avail the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:56:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 184 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52455</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the duplicate invoice was lost in transit or because prior permission to use the original invoice had not been obtained. The governing rule required only proof of such loss, and credit could be refused only if the Assistant Commissioner found that no loss had occurred. A denial based on the transporter&#039;s alleged failure to take further precautions, or on any supposed need for post facto approval, was not supported by the rule, so the assessee was entitled to avail the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>