<?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 (6) TMI 823 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126679</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding Cenvat credit on returned goods without original invoices. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of complying with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, stating that accompanying letters were insufficient documentation for claiming credit. Precedents involving goods returned with original invoices were deemed distinguishable, leading to the disqualification of the claim for benefits. The Tribunal criticized the lower appellate authority for not providing a reasoned decision and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:38:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 823 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126679</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding Cenvat credit on returned goods without original invoices. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of complying with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, stating that accompanying letters were insufficient documentation for claiming credit. Precedents involving goods returned with original invoices were deemed distinguishable, leading to the disqualification of the claim for benefits. The Tribunal criticized the lower appellate authority for not providing a reasoned decision and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>