<?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>2017 (1) TMI 361 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337281</link>
    <description>Denial of Cenvat credit for alleged non-receipt of goods was found unsustainable where the assessee produced invoices, RG-23 entries and weightment slips supporting receipt and credit availed on documentary record. Rule 9(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 requires reasonable verification of supplier identity and document genuineness, but once such records are furnished the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove that the invoices reflected only paper transactions. As no inquiry was made at the supplier or transporter level, and cancellation or non-existence of the dealer&#039;s registration was not established, the allegation of non-receipt was not proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2017 17:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 361 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337281</link>
      <description>Denial of Cenvat credit for alleged non-receipt of goods was found unsustainable where the assessee produced invoices, RG-23 entries and weightment slips supporting receipt and credit availed on documentary record. Rule 9(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 requires reasonable verification of supplier identity and document genuineness, but once such records are furnished the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove that the invoices reflected only paper transactions. As no inquiry was made at the supplier or transporter level, and cancellation or non-existence of the dealer&#039;s registration was not established, the allegation of non-receipt was not proved.</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=337281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>