<?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>2001 (9) TMI 553 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100305</link>
    <description>Under a record-based Modvat regime, an assessee claiming credit on HR sheets must reconcile input receipt and consumption with finished goods, scrap and rejection records through reliable statutory accounts. Because the appellants could not substantiate the alleged excess consumption or show that the discrepancy was matched by duly recorded scrap or duty-paid clearances, the credit denial and duty demand were sustained. Unexplained mismatches in the records were also treated as indicating misdeclaration with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period applied. The personal penalty on the company was modified because the invoked provision was not in force for the relevant period, and the managing director&#039;s separate penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:17:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 553 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100305</link>
      <description>Under a record-based Modvat regime, an assessee claiming credit on HR sheets must reconcile input receipt and consumption with finished goods, scrap and rejection records through reliable statutory accounts. Because the appellants could not substantiate the alleged excess consumption or show that the discrepancy was matched by duly recorded scrap or duty-paid clearances, the credit denial and duty demand were sustained. Unexplained mismatches in the records were also treated as indicating misdeclaration with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period applied. The personal penalty on the company was modified because the invoked provision was not in force for the relevant period, and the managing director&#039;s separate penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>