<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1651 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180962</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the denial of cenvat credit to M/s. Transformers &amp;amp; Rectifiers (India) Ltd. for wrongly availed credit on inputs. The denial was based on the discrepancy between the invoices from dealers and the actual supplier. The Tribunal held that Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, does not require ownership of inputs for credit eligibility. As the appellant received and utilized the goods for manufacturing as per valid invoices, and there was no evidence of non-receipt or fraud, the denial of credit was deemed unjustified. The demand for central excise duty was set aside, and the appeal was successful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:44:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1651 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180962</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the denial of cenvat credit to M/s. Transformers &amp;amp; Rectifiers (India) Ltd. for wrongly availed credit on inputs. The denial was based on the discrepancy between the invoices from dealers and the actual supplier. The Tribunal held that Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, does not require ownership of inputs for credit eligibility. As the appellant received and utilized the goods for manufacturing as per valid invoices, and there was no evidence of non-receipt or fraud, the denial of credit was deemed unjustified. The demand for central excise duty was set aside, and the appeal was successful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>