<?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>2007 (10) TMI 151 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3514</link>
    <description>Rule 12B permits CENVAT credit where textile goods are manufactured through a job worker, and credit on duty-paid fabrics procured in the principal&#039;s name and retained at the job worker&#039;s premises for export garments was admissible. The credit could not be denied merely because the principal did not physically receive the inputs or itself carry out manufacturing, since the job-work arrangement complied with the operative scheme and the export clearances were made in the principal&#039;s name. A procedural objection based on document and movement requirements failed absent fraud or administrative prejudice. The alleged month-wise purchase-consumption discrepancy also did not establish excess credit or improper receipt of inputs, so denial and recovery were unsustainable and the refund claim for unutilised credit survived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 151 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3514</link>
      <description>Rule 12B permits CENVAT credit where textile goods are manufactured through a job worker, and credit on duty-paid fabrics procured in the principal&#039;s name and retained at the job worker&#039;s premises for export garments was admissible. The credit could not be denied merely because the principal did not physically receive the inputs or itself carry out manufacturing, since the job-work arrangement complied with the operative scheme and the export clearances were made in the principal&#039;s name. A procedural objection based on document and movement requirements failed absent fraud or administrative prejudice. The alleged month-wise purchase-consumption discrepancy also did not establish excess credit or improper receipt of inputs, so denial and recovery were unsustainable and the refund claim for unutilised credit survived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>