<?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>2016 (6) TMI 568 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328859</link>
    <description>Minor inventory shortages were held insufficient to justify reversal of CENVAT credit where the assessee maintained a detailed computerised accounting system and the discrepancies were negligible against the overall volume of inputs handled. In the absence of evidence of clandestine removal, diversion, or unauthorised use of inputs, a mere physical stock variation was treated as explainable by normal accounting and human error. Applying earlier reasoning on commercially tolerable shortages in a large manufacturing set-up, the demand for reversal of credit was found unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 568 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328859</link>
      <description>Minor inventory shortages were held insufficient to justify reversal of CENVAT credit where the assessee maintained a detailed computerised accounting system and the discrepancies were negligible against the overall volume of inputs handled. In the absence of evidence of clandestine removal, diversion, or unauthorised use of inputs, a mere physical stock variation was treated as explainable by normal accounting and human error. Applying earlier reasoning on commercially tolerable shortages in a large manufacturing set-up, the demand for reversal of credit was found unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>