<?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>2013 (3) TMI 604 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170714</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was denied where the department established that the invoiced stainless steel inputs were not received and that the factory stock consisted only of assorted mixed scrap, making the invoices commercially inconsistent with the physical goods found. The extended period of limitation and penalties on the manufacturer and its senior purchase manager were sustained because the record supported fraudulent availment of credit, suppression, and knowing participation in the procurement pattern. By contrast, the penalty on the financing company was set aside because the evidence did not show knowledge of the non-supply of goods or conscious connivance in the invoice misuse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:36:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 604 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170714</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was denied where the department established that the invoiced stainless steel inputs were not received and that the factory stock consisted only of assorted mixed scrap, making the invoices commercially inconsistent with the physical goods found. The extended period of limitation and penalties on the manufacturer and its senior purchase manager were sustained because the record supported fraudulent availment of credit, suppression, and knowing participation in the procurement pattern. By contrast, the penalty on the financing company was set aside because the evidence did not show knowledge of the non-supply of goods or conscious connivance in the invoice misuse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>