<?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 1229 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336584</link>
    <description>Shortages found in a joint stock verification conducted with departmental officers, and admitted by the assessee&#039;s authorised representative, were held liable to duty and penalty; a later challenge to the verification was rejected as an afterthought. The Tribunal also held that Cenvat credit had to be reversed on inputs cleared without any proved processing, since no evidence showed job-work or manufacture before removal and the challans were found to support only a paper transaction. On these facts, even where defective inputs were sold as scrap, the credit taken on receipt remained reversible, and the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1229 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336584</link>
      <description>Shortages found in a joint stock verification conducted with departmental officers, and admitted by the assessee&#039;s authorised representative, were held liable to duty and penalty; a later challenge to the verification was rejected as an afterthought. The Tribunal also held that Cenvat credit had to be reversed on inputs cleared without any proved processing, since no evidence showed job-work or manufacture before removal and the challans were found to support only a paper transaction. On these facts, even where defective inputs were sold as scrap, the credit taken on receipt remained reversible, and the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>