<?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 (7) TMI 507 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122660</link>
    <description>A dealer issuing invoices without actual receipt or transport of goods cannot treat those invoices as valid for passing on Modvat credit. Corroborative evidence of no movement of goods, including denial by transporters, disowned octroi signatures, inadequate stock, and use of an invalid invoice book, supported the finding that the transactions were only paper entries. The proprietor&#039;s admission that he issued invoices merely to pass credit, together with the unretracted delay in later retraction, established active facilitation of credit fraud. On those facts, the penalty was held justified and no interference was called for.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:22:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 507 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122660</link>
      <description>A dealer issuing invoices without actual receipt or transport of goods cannot treat those invoices as valid for passing on Modvat credit. Corroborative evidence of no movement of goods, including denial by transporters, disowned octroi signatures, inadequate stock, and use of an invalid invoice book, supported the finding that the transactions were only paper entries. The proprietor&#039;s admission that he issued invoices merely to pass credit, together with the unretracted delay in later retraction, established active facilitation of credit fraud. On those facts, the penalty was held justified and no interference was called for.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>