<?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 (11) TMI 1018 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239841</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was examined in relation to imported inputs covered by a Bill of Entry initially issued in the importer&#039;s name and later endorsed to the manufacturer. The Tribunal treated actual receipt of the duty-paid goods in the claimant&#039;s factory and their use in manufacture as material facts, and held that credit could not be denied merely because the claimant&#039;s name did not appear on the original Bill of Entry. It accepted the view that the statutory scheme did not require refusal on that technical ground alone. Credit on the endorsed Bill of Entry was therefore admissible, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1018 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239841</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was examined in relation to imported inputs covered by a Bill of Entry initially issued in the importer&#039;s name and later endorsed to the manufacturer. The Tribunal treated actual receipt of the duty-paid goods in the claimant&#039;s factory and their use in manufacture as material facts, and held that credit could not be denied merely because the claimant&#039;s name did not appear on the original Bill of Entry. It accepted the view that the statutory scheme did not require refusal on that technical ground alone. Credit on the endorsed Bill of Entry was therefore admissible, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>