<?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 (10) TMI 131 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333111</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the demand for disallowing cenvat credit of approximately Rs. 34 lakhs against the manufacturer of thinners and phosphate Chemicals. The tribunal found the Revenue&#039;s investigations incomplete and inconclusive, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the receipt of inputs by the assessee. Despite the Revenue&#039;s arguments based on the absence of machinery and alleged non-transportation of inputs, the tribunal rejected their appeals and maintained the decision in favor of the assessee, highlighting the need for concrete evidence to prove wrongful availing of cenvat credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 131 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333111</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the demand for disallowing cenvat credit of approximately Rs. 34 lakhs against the manufacturer of thinners and phosphate Chemicals. The tribunal found the Revenue&#039;s investigations incomplete and inconclusive, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the receipt of inputs by the assessee. Despite the Revenue&#039;s arguments based on the absence of machinery and alleged non-transportation of inputs, the tribunal rejected their appeals and maintained the decision in favor of the assessee, highlighting the need for concrete evidence to prove wrongful availing of cenvat credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>