<?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 (5) TMI 712 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126374</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the deduction of rejected inputs without complying with formalities was dismissed due to lack of evidence for clandestine removal and failure to discharge the onus. The Commissioner&#039;s findings on inputs kept separately without duty payment were upheld as the Revenue failed to prove clearance without duty payment. The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance and the necessity of concrete evidence in tax-related disputes to support claims effectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:55:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 712 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126374</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the deduction of rejected inputs without complying with formalities was dismissed due to lack of evidence for clandestine removal and failure to discharge the onus. The Commissioner&#039;s findings on inputs kept separately without duty payment were upheld as the Revenue failed to prove clearance without duty payment. The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance and the necessity of concrete evidence in tax-related disputes to support claims effectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>