<?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 (6) TMI 791 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248887</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was denied where recorded statements and the documentary record showed that invoices were issued and dealt with without any movement of goods. The Tribunal treated the admitted invoice-only transactions, including the recipient&#039;s acknowledgment that the invoices were not checked against actual goods and that the inadmissible credit had been reversed, as sufficient to establish wrongful availment of credit through fictitious transactions. It held that, once fraud was established from the admissions and supporting documents, no further corroboration from transporters, brokers, or other witnesses was necessary. The consequential penalty was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 791 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248887</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was denied where recorded statements and the documentary record showed that invoices were issued and dealt with without any movement of goods. The Tribunal treated the admitted invoice-only transactions, including the recipient&#039;s acknowledgment that the invoices were not checked against actual goods and that the inadmissible credit had been reversed, as sufficient to establish wrongful availment of credit through fictitious transactions. It held that, once fraud was established from the admissions and supporting documents, no further corroboration from transporters, brokers, or other witnesses was necessary. The consequential penalty was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>