<?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 230 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52595</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied for a correctable invoice defect where the inputs were duty-paid, used in manufacture, and the final products were cleared on payment of duty. The appellate authority also could not rely on objections not raised in the show cause notice, including physical segregation and compliance with Rule 173H or Rule 173L. Credit was therefore held admissible, and the denial was set aside because the invoice error alone did not defeat substantive entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:35:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 230 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52595</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied for a correctable invoice defect where the inputs were duty-paid, used in manufacture, and the final products were cleared on payment of duty. The appellate authority also could not rely on objections not raised in the show cause notice, including physical segregation and compliance with Rule 173H or Rule 173L. Credit was therefore held admissible, and the denial was set aside because the invoice error alone did not defeat substantive entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>