<?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 1075 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340572</link>
    <description>Duty demand on alleged input shortages, clearance of PU foam blocks to related units, waste inputs, burnt machinery scrap, and job-work material was largely set aside because the removals were either unsupported on the facts found, related to goods not manufactured by the assessee, or involved no sustainable basis for applying the restriction on input credit. Reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs later subjected to rebate was also rejected because the rebate affected value, not the fact of duty payment by the supplier. Penalties on the assessee and its officers were deleted since the dispute was interpretational and no suppression or contumacious conduct was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1075 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340572</link>
      <description>Duty demand on alleged input shortages, clearance of PU foam blocks to related units, waste inputs, burnt machinery scrap, and job-work material was largely set aside because the removals were either unsupported on the facts found, related to goods not manufactured by the assessee, or involved no sustainable basis for applying the restriction on input credit. Reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs later subjected to rebate was also rejected because the rebate affected value, not the fact of duty payment by the supplier. Penalties on the assessee and its officers were deleted since the dispute was interpretational and no suppression or contumacious conduct was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>