<?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>2009 (1) TMI 632 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125781</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied solely because dealer invoices showed incorrect vehicle numbers, where statutory RG 23 records showed receipt and consumption of inputs and the final products were cleared on payment of duty. The Revenue produced no concrete evidence of diversion, alternative procurement, or clandestine removal, and a finding of non-receipt based only on assumptions and probabilities was insufficient. On that basis, the denial of credit was not justified and the penalties could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 09:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 632 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125781</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied solely because dealer invoices showed incorrect vehicle numbers, where statutory RG 23 records showed receipt and consumption of inputs and the final products were cleared on payment of duty. The Revenue produced no concrete evidence of diversion, alternative procurement, or clandestine removal, and a finding of non-receipt based only on assumptions and probabilities was insufficient. On that basis, the denial of credit was not justified and the penalties could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>