<?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 475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338775</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the tribunal&#039;s decision to allow Cenvat credit to the assessee for inputs not actually received but used in the manufacturing process. The court found no substantial question of law in the tribunal&#039;s ruling, dismissing the appeal and affirming that minor discrepancies in weight did not indicate unauthorized use of inputs. The decision was supported by the lack of evidence showing illicit diversion of materials, leading to the allowance of the credit based on factual findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338775</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the tribunal&#039;s decision to allow Cenvat credit to the assessee for inputs not actually received but used in the manufacturing process. The court found no substantial question of law in the tribunal&#039;s ruling, dismissing the appeal and affirming that minor discrepancies in weight did not indicate unauthorized use of inputs. The decision was supported by the lack of evidence showing illicit diversion of materials, leading to the allowance of the credit based on factual findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>