<?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 (2) TMI 193 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338493</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit denial was unsustainable where the show cause notice did not specifically allege that the inputs were non-duty paid, not received in the factory, or not used in production; such unparticularised allegations could not justify disallowance, so the credit disallowance was set aside. Duty demand for alleged stock shortage was also unsustainable because the goods had not reached RG-1 stage and were not required to be reflected as finished stock in the same manner as completed goods; that demand was set aside. A further demand based only on eye estimation, without actual weighment or reliable stock verification, lacked evidentiary certainty and was similarly set aside, resulting in relief to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 09:16:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 193 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338493</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit denial was unsustainable where the show cause notice did not specifically allege that the inputs were non-duty paid, not received in the factory, or not used in production; such unparticularised allegations could not justify disallowance, so the credit disallowance was set aside. Duty demand for alleged stock shortage was also unsustainable because the goods had not reached RG-1 stage and were not required to be reflected as finished stock in the same manner as completed goods; that demand was set aside. A further demand based only on eye estimation, without actual weighment or reliable stock verification, lacked evidentiary certainty and was similarly set aside, resulting in relief to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>