<?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 999 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340496</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous records, panchnama and corroborated statements were treated as sufficient to establish clandestine removals and non-manufacture, so the central excise demand, related interest and penalty against M/s Mittal Overseas were sustained. On the same factual basis, Modvat/Cenvat credit taken by M/s A.S. Overseas was held to be wrongly availed because the unit was found non-functional and no manufacturing activity or receipt of inputs was established; the credit demand and penalty were sustained. Shri Sandeep Mittal was treated as the controlling person and his liability was upheld, but the penalty was reduced on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 999 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340496</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous records, panchnama and corroborated statements were treated as sufficient to establish clandestine removals and non-manufacture, so the central excise demand, related interest and penalty against M/s Mittal Overseas were sustained. On the same factual basis, Modvat/Cenvat credit taken by M/s A.S. Overseas was held to be wrongly availed because the unit was found non-functional and no manufacturing activity or receipt of inputs was established; the credit demand and penalty were sustained. Shri Sandeep Mittal was treated as the controlling person and his liability was upheld, but the penalty was reduced on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>