<?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 (11) TMI 385 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120211</link>
    <description>Marginal shortage of raw material, standing at about 0.2% of total inputs, was treated as insufficient basis for reversal of Cenvat credit where there was no evidence of clandestine removal or consumption in the manufacture of dutiable final products without duty payment. The assessee&#039;s explanation, based on voluminous operations, movement of materials, and transition to a computerized accounting system, was accepted as a plausible commercial explanation. Small input variations within tolerance limits were treated as normal business practice, and in the absence of contrary evidence, credit could not be denied. On that basis, the demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:42:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 385 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120211</link>
      <description>Marginal shortage of raw material, standing at about 0.2% of total inputs, was treated as insufficient basis for reversal of Cenvat credit where there was no evidence of clandestine removal or consumption in the manufacture of dutiable final products without duty payment. The assessee&#039;s explanation, based on voluminous operations, movement of materials, and transition to a computerized accounting system, was accepted as a plausible commercial explanation. Small input variations within tolerance limits were treated as normal business practice, and in the absence of contrary evidence, credit could not be denied. On that basis, the demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>