<?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 (11) TMI 79 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1299</link>
    <description>Minor weighbridge variations of about 1 to 2 per cent were treated as normal differences and not as true shortages, so credit on duty-paid inputs was admissible subject to verification of actual figures. Where alleged shortages were said to arise from transcription error or later excess supply, credit was not automatically allowed and had to be proved by GRNs, weighment slips, invoices and ledger entries before the original authority. Credit on rejected inputs later re-accepted into use through Re-GRN was available only on proper documentary proof, and the disputed claims were remanded for fresh examination. Penalty equal to the credit demand was set aside for reconsideration on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 79 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1299</link>
      <description>Minor weighbridge variations of about 1 to 2 per cent were treated as normal differences and not as true shortages, so credit on duty-paid inputs was admissible subject to verification of actual figures. Where alleged shortages were said to arise from transcription error or later excess supply, credit was not automatically allowed and had to be proved by GRNs, weighment slips, invoices and ledger entries before the original authority. Credit on rejected inputs later re-accepted into use through Re-GRN was available only on proper documentary proof, and the disputed claims were remanded for fresh examination. Penalty equal to the credit demand was set aside for reconsideration on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>