<?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>2015 (2) TMI 466 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256466</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on inputs cannot be denied merely because stock verification shows a marginal shortage where the variation is explained by natural differences in temperature and density measurement of lubricating oil. Where goods were received in sealed condition, invoices reflected the dispatched quantity, and there was no proof of diversion, clandestine clearance, or non-use in manufacture, credit on the invoiced quantity was allowed. A demand raised beyond the normal period was also treated as unsustainable because the record did not show suppression of facts or clandestine removal. The note treats these principles as supporting maintenance of credit and rejection of the extended demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 466 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256466</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on inputs cannot be denied merely because stock verification shows a marginal shortage where the variation is explained by natural differences in temperature and density measurement of lubricating oil. Where goods were received in sealed condition, invoices reflected the dispatched quantity, and there was no proof of diversion, clandestine clearance, or non-use in manufacture, credit on the invoiced quantity was allowed. A demand raised beyond the normal period was also treated as unsustainable because the record did not show suppression of facts or clandestine removal. The note treats these principles as supporting maintenance of credit and rejection of the extended demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>