<?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 (10) TMI 326 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116723</link>
    <description>Marginal stock shortage in input records does not justify duty demand or penalty where there is no proof of mala fide, clandestine removal, or wrongful availment of Modvat credit. A shortfall of about 0.6% was treated as a reasonable variation, especially where records also showed excess of similar inputs and the discrepancy was explained by clerical errors, substitution of comparable items, and replacement issues. In the absence of evidence that goods were diverted or that credit was taken without receipt of inputs, the alleged shortage could not sustain penalty-linked liability. The duty demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:33:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 326 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116723</link>
      <description>Marginal stock shortage in input records does not justify duty demand or penalty where there is no proof of mala fide, clandestine removal, or wrongful availment of Modvat credit. A shortfall of about 0.6% was treated as a reasonable variation, especially where records also showed excess of similar inputs and the discrepancy was explained by clerical errors, substitution of comparable items, and replacement issues. In the absence of evidence that goods were diverted or that credit was taken without receipt of inputs, the alleged shortage could not sustain penalty-linked liability. The duty demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>