<?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 (10) TMI 136 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53407</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the assessee used the original invoice instead of the duplicate copy, where the inputs were duty-paid and their receipt and use in manufacture were undisputed. For periods before 19-1-1995, the duplicate copy was not prescribed as the transport copy, and credit taken on the original invoice was treated as admissible under Rule 57G(2A) of the Central Excise Rules. The denial of credit on that sole ground was therefore unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:28:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 136 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53407</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the assessee used the original invoice instead of the duplicate copy, where the inputs were duty-paid and their receipt and use in manufacture were undisputed. For periods before 19-1-1995, the duplicate copy was not prescribed as the transport copy, and credit taken on the original invoice was treated as admissible under Rule 57G(2A) of the Central Excise Rules. The denial of credit on that sole ground was therefore unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>