<?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 (10) TMI 1833 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266558</link>
    <description>The appellant challenged the denial of Cenvat credit on inputs due to alleged discrepancies in invoices without physical receipt of goods. The Revenue failed to produce evidence from the supplier or conduct thorough investigations. Relying on a precedent from the Hon&#039;ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the court found the demand unsustainable without proper independent inquiry. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with potential consequential relief for the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:15:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1833 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266558</link>
      <description>The appellant challenged the denial of Cenvat credit on inputs due to alleged discrepancies in invoices without physical receipt of goods. The Revenue failed to produce evidence from the supplier or conduct thorough investigations. Relying on a precedent from the Hon&#039;ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the court found the demand unsustainable without proper independent inquiry. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with potential consequential relief for the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>