<?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>2006 (6) TMI 11 - Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=594</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by a job worker could not be denied absent proof that the differential duty arose from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Revenue bore the burden of establishing those disqualifying circumstances, and the record showed no deliberate evasion; the job worker had itself detected the short levy and paid the duty with interest. The material also indicated a revenue-neutral situation because the duty paid by the job worker would have been available as credit to the assessee. The credit was therefore admissible, and the disallowance was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 11 - Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=594</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by a job worker could not be denied absent proof that the differential duty arose from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Revenue bore the burden of establishing those disqualifying circumstances, and the record showed no deliberate evasion; the job worker had itself detected the short levy and paid the duty with interest. The material also indicated a revenue-neutral situation because the duty paid by the job worker would have been available as credit to the assessee. The credit was therefore admissible, and the disallowance was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>