<?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>2006 (7) TMI 483 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119835</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied where the assessee produced weighbridge slips, consignment notes and other supporting records showing receipt of inputs in the factory, and the revenue produced no rebuttal evidence; mere doubt based on a vehicle&#039;s registration particulars was insufficient, so the demand on merits failed. The extended period of limitation was also unsustainable because RT 12 returns and related records had been filed, giving the authorities an opportunity to verify consumption and production, and no timely detection of any alleged non-receipt was made; suppression, misstatement or fraud could not be invoked on that basis, so the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 483 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119835</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied where the assessee produced weighbridge slips, consignment notes and other supporting records showing receipt of inputs in the factory, and the revenue produced no rebuttal evidence; mere doubt based on a vehicle&#039;s registration particulars was insufficient, so the demand on merits failed. The extended period of limitation was also unsustainable because RT 12 returns and related records had been filed, giving the authorities an opportunity to verify consumption and production, and no timely detection of any alleged non-receipt was made; suppression, misstatement or fraud could not be invoked on that basis, so the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>