<?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 (7) TMI 1021 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249985</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,23,661 to M/s. Sarila Steel Rolling Mills, imposed a reduced penalty on the manufacturing unit, and set aside the penalty on the partner due to insufficient findings on their involvement in the wrongful credit availment. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and statements in cases of wrongful credit availment based on cenvatable invoices, ultimately concluding the appeals in favor of the appellant with specified terms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:51:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 1021 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249985</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,23,661 to M/s. Sarila Steel Rolling Mills, imposed a reduced penalty on the manufacturing unit, and set aside the penalty on the partner due to insufficient findings on their involvement in the wrongful credit availment. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and statements in cases of wrongful credit availment based on cenvatable invoices, ultimately concluding the appeals in favor of the appellant with specified terms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>