<?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 661 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125810</link>
    <description>Alleged clandestine removal cannot be sustained on entries in a third-party register alone; such a charge requires positive, corroborative evidence such as parallel accounts, unaccounted raw material, excess consumption, or transport proof, and the demand and penalties were set aside. Modvat credit also cannot be denied, nor penalties imposed on registered dealers, merely because original manufacturer invoices were used instead of duplicate copies where the duty-paid nature of the inputs and entitlement to credit on merits were otherwise established; the invoice irregularity was treated as a procedural lapse, and the credit denial and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 09:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 661 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125810</link>
      <description>Alleged clandestine removal cannot be sustained on entries in a third-party register alone; such a charge requires positive, corroborative evidence such as parallel accounts, unaccounted raw material, excess consumption, or transport proof, and the demand and penalties were set aside. Modvat credit also cannot be denied, nor penalties imposed on registered dealers, merely because original manufacturer invoices were used instead of duplicate copies where the duty-paid nature of the inputs and entitlement to credit on merits were otherwise established; the invoice irregularity was treated as a procedural lapse, and the credit denial and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>