<?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 377 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114677</link>
    <description>Duty-paid supply of imported superior kerosene supported by Bills of Entry was sufficient to defeat the dealer&#039;s demand for alleged excess CVD collection, although penalty for improper maintenance of the register was sustained because accounting irregularities remained established. CENVAT credit taken by the recipient on invoices issued by the registered dealer could not be denied where the invoice books were validly authenticated and the supply was accepted as duty paid; clerical mismatches in invoice particulars or quantity references were not enough to disallow credit on these facts. The operative principle is that substantive duty payment prevails over minor documentary discrepancies, while separate register lapses may still attract penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 18:11:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 377 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114677</link>
      <description>Duty-paid supply of imported superior kerosene supported by Bills of Entry was sufficient to defeat the dealer&#039;s demand for alleged excess CVD collection, although penalty for improper maintenance of the register was sustained because accounting irregularities remained established. CENVAT credit taken by the recipient on invoices issued by the registered dealer could not be denied where the invoice books were validly authenticated and the supply was accepted as duty paid; clerical mismatches in invoice particulars or quantity references were not enough to disallow credit on these facts. The operative principle is that substantive duty payment prevails over minor documentary discrepancies, while separate register lapses may still attract penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>