<?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>2003 (5) TMI 447 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109861</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible on Caustic Soda Flakes, Soda Ash and Titanium Dioxide used in manufacturing paper and paper board because the inputs were received under duty-paid documents, recorded in statutory books, and the higher consumption was plausibly explained by evidence, including a coating plant and poor-quality waste paper requiring extra de-inking and bleaching. Credit could not be denied merely because consumption exceeded the previous year&#039;s figures. The Director&#039;s penalty also failed because it rested entirely on the same allegation of wrongful credit availment; once the credit disallowance was set aside, the foundation for penalty disappeared.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:50:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 447 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109861</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible on Caustic Soda Flakes, Soda Ash and Titanium Dioxide used in manufacturing paper and paper board because the inputs were received under duty-paid documents, recorded in statutory books, and the higher consumption was plausibly explained by evidence, including a coating plant and poor-quality waste paper requiring extra de-inking and bleaching. Credit could not be denied merely because consumption exceeded the previous year&#039;s figures. The Director&#039;s penalty also failed because it rested entirely on the same allegation of wrongful credit availment; once the credit disallowance was set aside, the foundation for penalty disappeared.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>