<?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>2007 (2) TMI 485 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121185</link>
    <description>Duty demand was sustained for shortage of inputs and for rejected inputs found in the factory because the managing partner admitted the shortage and the presence of unusable rejected inputs, voluntarily debited the duty, and never retracted the statement. Cenvat credit on kraft paper was allowed because the inputs were received during the exemption period but entered in RG 23A Part-I only after the assessee crossed the exemption threshold; in the absence of evidence of consumption during the exempt period, credit could not be denied merely because the purchase occurred earlier. The final position was that the demand survived only on the shortage and rejected inputs, while the credit was available on the kraft paper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:12:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 485 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121185</link>
      <description>Duty demand was sustained for shortage of inputs and for rejected inputs found in the factory because the managing partner admitted the shortage and the presence of unusable rejected inputs, voluntarily debited the duty, and never retracted the statement. Cenvat credit on kraft paper was allowed because the inputs were received during the exemption period but entered in RG 23A Part-I only after the assessee crossed the exemption threshold; in the absence of evidence of consumption during the exempt period, credit could not be denied merely because the purchase occurred earlier. The final position was that the demand survived only on the shortage and rejected inputs, while the credit was available on the kraft paper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>