<?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 (12) TMI 984 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336339</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on copper rods sent to job workers was not liable to reversal merely because part of the material did not return in the same form. The alleged shortage was explained as inevitable process loss, with off-cuts and scrap arising during manufacture of conductors to required length and specification. Since the scrap was retained by the job workers and used in further manufacture of other dutiable products cleared on payment of duty, and there was no evidence of diversion, unaccounted clearance, or continued identifiability of the inputs, the demand based on alleged non-return was unsustainable. The connected confiscation and penalties were also set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 984 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336339</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on copper rods sent to job workers was not liable to reversal merely because part of the material did not return in the same form. The alleged shortage was explained as inevitable process loss, with off-cuts and scrap arising during manufacture of conductors to required length and specification. Since the scrap was retained by the job workers and used in further manufacture of other dutiable products cleared on payment of duty, and there was no evidence of diversion, unaccounted clearance, or continued identifiability of the inputs, the demand based on alleged non-return was unsustainable. The connected confiscation and penalties were also set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>