<?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 (12) TMI 409 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254065</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit is available only on actual receipt of inputs in the factory on the strength of supporting documents, so the assessee must establish genuine movement and delivery of goods. Where independent material showed transporter denial, vehicles incapable of carrying the scrap, admissions of delivery at Delhi, and octroi verification negating transportation for several consignments, the alleged denial of cross-examination did not by itself displace the prima facie case against the appellants. In the absence of a prima facie case, revenue protection justified a substantial pre-deposit. The appellants were required to pre-deposit 50% of the duty demand, and on compliance the balance of duty, interest, and penalties was waived and recovery stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 409 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254065</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit is available only on actual receipt of inputs in the factory on the strength of supporting documents, so the assessee must establish genuine movement and delivery of goods. Where independent material showed transporter denial, vehicles incapable of carrying the scrap, admissions of delivery at Delhi, and octroi verification negating transportation for several consignments, the alleged denial of cross-examination did not by itself displace the prima facie case against the appellants. In the absence of a prima facie case, revenue protection justified a substantial pre-deposit. The appellants were required to pre-deposit 50% of the duty demand, and on compliance the balance of duty, interest, and penalties was waived and recovery stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>