<?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>2000 (6) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93710</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was denied where the evidence showed that the appellants received mixed market scrap through intermediary dealers and not identifiable ship-breaking scrap covered by the Gate Passes. The Tribunal found that the goods had been unloaded, sorted and mixed before delivery, so the duty documents no longer corresponded to the actual goods received; availing credit on those documents without receiving the covered goods amounted to contravention of Rule 57G. An unexplained payment linked to issuance of Gate Passes further weakened the bona fides of the transactions. The penalty was also upheld because no material was shown to disturb the Commissioner&#039;s assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:13:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93710</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was denied where the evidence showed that the appellants received mixed market scrap through intermediary dealers and not identifiable ship-breaking scrap covered by the Gate Passes. The Tribunal found that the goods had been unloaded, sorted and mixed before delivery, so the duty documents no longer corresponded to the actual goods received; availing credit on those documents without receiving the covered goods amounted to contravention of Rule 57G. An unexplained payment linked to issuance of Gate Passes further weakened the bona fides of the transactions. The penalty was also upheld because no material was shown to disturb the Commissioner&#039;s assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>