<?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 1444 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336799</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit and related duty demands depend on proof of actual receipt, correct identification of goods, and reliable evidence for any claimed reversal or clearance. Credit on pipes was sustained because the later invoices did not match the original goods by description, classification, value, or job number, so they did not establish reversal on the same items. Credit on machinery was also denied because only accounting records and a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate were produced, without proof of receipt or possession in the factory. The scrap demand was set aside because it lacked proper quantification and supporting evidence. Credit on welding electrodes was denied for failure to prove receipt in the factory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:42:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1444 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336799</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit and related duty demands depend on proof of actual receipt, correct identification of goods, and reliable evidence for any claimed reversal or clearance. Credit on pipes was sustained because the later invoices did not match the original goods by description, classification, value, or job number, so they did not establish reversal on the same items. Credit on machinery was also denied because only accounting records and a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate were produced, without proof of receipt or possession in the factory. The scrap demand was set aside because it lacked proper quantification and supporting evidence. Credit on welding electrodes was denied for failure to prove receipt in the factory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>