<?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>2013 (3) TMI 140 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221373</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was not admissible on inputs admitted as short in stock verification and written off in the books, because the missing quantity was not shown to have been used in manufacture; however, the demand had to be re-quantified on the net shortage after setting off excess stock against shortage. The extended period of limitation was not upheld on the facts, and no penalty was leviable, so the demand was confined to the normal period with fresh quantification directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 17:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 140 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221373</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was not admissible on inputs admitted as short in stock verification and written off in the books, because the missing quantity was not shown to have been used in manufacture; however, the demand had to be re-quantified on the net shortage after setting off excess stock against shortage. The extended period of limitation was not upheld on the facts, and no penalty was leviable, so the demand was confined to the normal period with fresh quantification directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>