<?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 (3) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340146</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI adjudicated on the case involving M/s Genus Power Infrastructures Limited, disallowing cenvat credit and imposing a penalty. The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting that the inputs were received and used in manufacturing, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal lacked substantial evidence. Allegations of non-receipt of inputs were dismissed due to lack of evidence. The appellant&#039;s request for cross-examination of witnesses was granted for a fair opportunity. The confirmation of demand and penalty imposition lacked substantive reasoning and required reexamination. Ultimately, the denial of cenvat credit was not legally sustainable without evidence of diversion, leading to a remand for a fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Dec 2017 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340146</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI adjudicated on the case involving M/s Genus Power Infrastructures Limited, disallowing cenvat credit and imposing a penalty. The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting that the inputs were received and used in manufacturing, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal lacked substantial evidence. Allegations of non-receipt of inputs were dismissed due to lack of evidence. The appellant&#039;s request for cross-examination of witnesses was granted for a fair opportunity. The confirmation of demand and penalty imposition lacked substantive reasoning and required reexamination. Ultimately, the denial of cenvat credit was not legally sustainable without evidence of diversion, leading to a remand for a fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>