<?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 (11) TMI 265 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53736</link>
    <description>Credit under Rule 57G(6) cannot be denied merely because the duplicate invoice copy was lost in transit. The relevant inquiry is limited to whether the inputs were actually received in the factory and whether duty had been paid on those inputs. Because the original authority examined the matter on an incorrect understanding of the rule, the denial of credit could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:55:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 265 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53736</link>
      <description>Credit under Rule 57G(6) cannot be denied merely because the duplicate invoice copy was lost in transit. The relevant inquiry is limited to whether the inputs were actually received in the factory and whether duty had been paid on those inputs. Because the original authority examined the matter on an incorrect understanding of the rule, the denial of credit could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>