<?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 (12) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240788</link>
    <description>Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies only where duty-paid goods are brought back to a factory and credit is actually taken on their receipt; used empty glass bottles and plastic crates transferred between units did not attract a further demand on that basis. The demand under Rule 16 was therefore not sustainable. Cenvat credit could not be denied for inter-unit transfer of the returned containers in the absence of proof that credit had been wrongly availed twice, and invoice discrepancies were not enough to sustain the larger demand where receipt of goods and duty payment at origin were undisputed. Consequently, the principal credit denial and most penalties failed, leaving only the admitted amount with corresponding interest and limited penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240788</link>
      <description>Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies only where duty-paid goods are brought back to a factory and credit is actually taken on their receipt; used empty glass bottles and plastic crates transferred between units did not attract a further demand on that basis. The demand under Rule 16 was therefore not sustainable. Cenvat credit could not be denied for inter-unit transfer of the returned containers in the absence of proof that credit had been wrongly availed twice, and invoice discrepancies were not enough to sustain the larger demand where receipt of goods and duty payment at origin were undisputed. Consequently, the principal credit denial and most penalties failed, leaving only the admitted amount with corresponding interest and limited penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>