<?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>2007 (8) TMI 657 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162718</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier is alleged to have availed irregular credit, where the buyer paid for the goods and there is no evidence of any flow back to the supplier. The CBEC circular indicates that reversal or recovery should not be pursued against the consignee in a genuine transaction and that action, where appropriate, lies against the manufacturer-supplier. Consistently, credit taken on duty-paid goods received under invoices cannot be denied absent fraud or suppression by the purchaser. On these facts, denial of credit was unjustified and the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 657 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162718</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier is alleged to have availed irregular credit, where the buyer paid for the goods and there is no evidence of any flow back to the supplier. The CBEC circular indicates that reversal or recovery should not be pursued against the consignee in a genuine transaction and that action, where appropriate, lies against the manufacturer-supplier. Consistently, credit taken on duty-paid goods received under invoices cannot be denied absent fraud or suppression by the purchaser. On these facts, denial of credit was unjustified and the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>