<?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 (11) TMI 1343 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335325</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the initial order that denied the appellant the recovery of inadmissible CENVAT Credit on the shortage of raw materials. The tribunal found the 0.0041% shortage of aluminium scrap to be negligible, attributing it to the weighing process conducted outside the premises. It held that the shortage was not substantial enough to justify denying the CENVAT Credit for duty paid on the imported inputs, citing previous decisions that required substantial evidence to support such denials.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:03:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1343 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335325</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the initial order that denied the appellant the recovery of inadmissible CENVAT Credit on the shortage of raw materials. The tribunal found the 0.0041% shortage of aluminium scrap to be negligible, attributing it to the weighing process conducted outside the premises. It held that the shortage was not substantial enough to justify denying the CENVAT Credit for duty paid on the imported inputs, citing previous decisions that required substantial evidence to support such denials.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>