<?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>2014 (3) TMI 785 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245337</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit claimed on invoices issued by registered dealers was disallowed because the dealers had no duty paying documents to show that the inputs had suffered duty, so the demand was sustained against the assessee. On penalty, the absence of evidence of connivance or collusion between the assessee and the dealers justified interference, so the equal penalty was reduced substantially.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:10:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 785 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245337</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit claimed on invoices issued by registered dealers was disallowed because the dealers had no duty paying documents to show that the inputs had suffered duty, so the demand was sustained against the assessee. On penalty, the absence of evidence of connivance or collusion between the assessee and the dealers justified interference, so the equal penalty was reduced substantially.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>