<?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>2005 (5) TMI 477 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116281</link>
    <description>Complete waiver of pre-deposit was refused where Cenvat credit was claimed on endorsed Bills of Entry that lacked endorsement by the Customs Officer required under the governing circular. The applicants&#039; reliance on the prescribed-document rule and curative protection for incomplete particulars was not accepted because they were independent manufacturers and did not fall within the specific transfer or diversion situation covered by the circular. The absence of Customs endorsement created a prima facie weakness in the credit claim, so only partial relief was granted and the balance duty and penalty were stayed subject to a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:49:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 477 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116281</link>
      <description>Complete waiver of pre-deposit was refused where Cenvat credit was claimed on endorsed Bills of Entry that lacked endorsement by the Customs Officer required under the governing circular. The applicants&#039; reliance on the prescribed-document rule and curative protection for incomplete particulars was not accepted because they were independent manufacturers and did not fall within the specific transfer or diversion situation covered by the circular. The absence of Customs endorsement created a prima facie weakness in the credit claim, so only partial relief was granted and the balance duty and penalty were stayed subject to a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>