<?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 (10) TMI 755 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153776</link>
    <description>Production of a statement of account alone was held insufficient to prove actual payment without supporting details, and weighment slips did not establish the disputed transportations where the transporters denied movement of goods and the vehicles were found to be non-transport vehicles. On those facts, no prima facie infirmity was found in the denial of Modvat credit. However, where credit was denied on the basis that vehicle owners&#039; addresses were fake, and where the denial was made without specifying the ground, a prima facie case for stay was found to that extent. Partial stay was granted, with deposit directed only for the balance duty demand identified by the Tribunal and waiver of interest and penalty allowed pending appeal on such deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:09:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 755 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153776</link>
      <description>Production of a statement of account alone was held insufficient to prove actual payment without supporting details, and weighment slips did not establish the disputed transportations where the transporters denied movement of goods and the vehicles were found to be non-transport vehicles. On those facts, no prima facie infirmity was found in the denial of Modvat credit. However, where credit was denied on the basis that vehicle owners&#039; addresses were fake, and where the denial was made without specifying the ground, a prima facie case for stay was found to that extent. Partial stay was granted, with deposit directed only for the balance duty demand identified by the Tribunal and waiver of interest and penalty allowed pending appeal on such deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>