<?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>2004 (1) TMI 269 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53225</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held available where a registered dealer received coils, arranged their cutting into sheets, and issued invoices for the resultant goods in line with the applicable trade notice and board circular. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not allege manufacture or any change in tariff classification arising from the cutting process, so the objection that the goods were not brought to the dealer&#039;s registered premises did not justify denial of credit. On that basis, the procedural difference in the place of cutting and the form of invoicing could not defeat substantive credit entitlement, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:48:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 269 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53225</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held available where a registered dealer received coils, arranged their cutting into sheets, and issued invoices for the resultant goods in line with the applicable trade notice and board circular. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not allege manufacture or any change in tariff classification arising from the cutting process, so the objection that the goods were not brought to the dealer&#039;s registered premises did not justify denial of credit. On that basis, the procedural difference in the place of cutting and the form of invoicing could not defeat substantive credit entitlement, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>