<?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 (10) TMI 126 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251992</link>
    <description>A transitional CENVAT credit scheme allowed deemed credit on fabrics lying in stock on 31.03.2003 where manufacturers could not produce duty-paying documents for inputs under Chapters 50 to 63, and credit could be taken on the basis of the prescribed declaration and stock valuation. On that basis, supplier invoices or proof of actual duty payment were not required, so the objection for want of such documents failed. Once credit was claimed under the stock-based transitional provision, supplier verification was not material to entitlement, and the supplier-side investigation, show-cause notice, demand and penalties were unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 126 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251992</link>
      <description>A transitional CENVAT credit scheme allowed deemed credit on fabrics lying in stock on 31.03.2003 where manufacturers could not produce duty-paying documents for inputs under Chapters 50 to 63, and credit could be taken on the basis of the prescribed declaration and stock valuation. On that basis, supplier invoices or proof of actual duty payment were not required, so the objection for want of such documents failed. Once credit was claimed under the stock-based transitional provision, supplier verification was not material to entitlement, and the supplier-side investigation, show-cause notice, demand and penalties were unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>