<?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>2012 (12) TMI 260 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219245</link>
    <description>Mere write-off of inputs in financial accounts does not, by itself, amount to removal from the factory or justify reversal of Cenvat credit when there is no evidence that the inputs were cleared and they continued to remain in the manufacturer&#039;s possession. On the facts recorded, the demand was based only on accounting treatment showing the inputs at nil value, so the credit reversal demand failed and the related penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 260 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219245</link>
      <description>Mere write-off of inputs in financial accounts does not, by itself, amount to removal from the factory or justify reversal of Cenvat credit when there is no evidence that the inputs were cleared and they continued to remain in the manufacturer&#039;s possession. On the facts recorded, the demand was based only on accounting treatment showing the inputs at nil value, so the credit reversal demand failed and the related penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>