<?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>2010 (6) TMI 357 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201870</link>
    <description>Modvat credit is available only where the goods covered by the invoices are actually received in the factory and the supporting records establish duty-paid receipt. On the facts discussed, the evidence indicated non-receipt of goods, including the director&#039;s initial admission and transporter material showing delivery elsewhere, so the credit was treated as irregular. Setting aside penalty against the supplier on a technical ground did not affect the beneficiary&#039;s liability, because the factual basis of irregular credit remained. Relief granted to other noticees on different facts was also held not to require identical treatment, as each noticee must be assessed on the evidence against it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 357 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201870</link>
      <description>Modvat credit is available only where the goods covered by the invoices are actually received in the factory and the supporting records establish duty-paid receipt. On the facts discussed, the evidence indicated non-receipt of goods, including the director&#039;s initial admission and transporter material showing delivery elsewhere, so the credit was treated as irregular. Setting aside penalty against the supplier on a technical ground did not affect the beneficiary&#039;s liability, because the factual basis of irregular credit remained. Relief granted to other noticees on different facts was also held not to require identical treatment, as each noticee must be assessed on the evidence against it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>