<?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 477 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119335</link>
    <description>Deemed credit on re-rollable iron or steel materials purchased from the market could not be denied merely because the sellers&#039; full addresses and duty-paying documents were not produced, where the governing circular allowed credit on such purchases without documentary proof of duty payment and the assessee maintained purchase records, stores receipt entries and RG 23 accounts. The Revenue also failed to allege fabrication of documents, so the denial of credit was unsustainable. The longer limitation period could not be invoked because the relevant period showed no material of suppression, misstatement or similar conduct, and departmental audit had not detected any irregularity. The assessee therefore succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:54:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 477 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119335</link>
      <description>Deemed credit on re-rollable iron or steel materials purchased from the market could not be denied merely because the sellers&#039; full addresses and duty-paying documents were not produced, where the governing circular allowed credit on such purchases without documentary proof of duty payment and the assessee maintained purchase records, stores receipt entries and RG 23 accounts. The Revenue also failed to allege fabrication of documents, so the denial of credit was unsustainable. The longer limitation period could not be invoked because the relevant period showed no material of suppression, misstatement or similar conduct, and departmental audit had not detected any irregularity. The assessee therefore succeeded with consequential relief.</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=119335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>