<?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>2008 (10) TMI 469 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125006</link>
    <description>Duty and penalty on a job worker for alleged non-compliance with Notifications No. 83/94-C.E. and 84/94-C.E. were not sustainable where the demand rested only on claimed failure to maintain prescribed records. The assessee&#039;s delivery-cum-challans and register showing receipt of scrap, manufacture of billets, and return of finished goods were treated as sufficient evidence that the material was accounted for and labour charges were recorded. In the absence of any verification at the supplier&#039;s end or evidence that the billets made from the supplied raw material were not received back by the supplier, the demand could not be upheld, and the levy was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:18:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 469 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125006</link>
      <description>Duty and penalty on a job worker for alleged non-compliance with Notifications No. 83/94-C.E. and 84/94-C.E. were not sustainable where the demand rested only on claimed failure to maintain prescribed records. The assessee&#039;s delivery-cum-challans and register showing receipt of scrap, manufacture of billets, and return of finished goods were treated as sufficient evidence that the material was accounted for and labour charges were recorded. In the absence of any verification at the supplier&#039;s end or evidence that the billets made from the supplied raw material were not received back by the supplier, the demand could not be upheld, and the levy was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>