<?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>2010 (5) TMI 225 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77630</link>
    <description>Modvat/Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the assessee failed to prove actual receipt of the goods in its factory and the evidence indicated diversion through accommodation invoices. The Tribunal noted that statements of vehicle owners and transport evidence showed the goods were not carried to the assessee&#039;s premises, and the burden remained on the assessee to establish bona fide receipt before claiming credit. In the absence of such proof, the first appellate authority&#039;s view on transportation savings and limitation was found unsustainable. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was allowed and the Order-in-Original was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 225 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77630</link>
      <description>Modvat/Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the assessee failed to prove actual receipt of the goods in its factory and the evidence indicated diversion through accommodation invoices. The Tribunal noted that statements of vehicle owners and transport evidence showed the goods were not carried to the assessee&#039;s premises, and the burden remained on the assessee to establish bona fide receipt before claiming credit. In the absence of such proof, the first appellate authority&#039;s view on transportation savings and limitation was found unsustainable. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was allowed and the Order-in-Original was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>