<?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 (7) TMI 405 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345293</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was denied where dealer invoices were found to be unsupported by any genuine movement of duty-paid goods. The dealer had obtained registration on the basis of forged rent documents, had no established godown or possession of premises, and the registration was cancelled retrospectively. On the record, the invoices reflected only paper transactions, and the manufacturer failed to prove actual purchase, transit sale, or proper verification of the dealer&#039;s identity and address. As the statutory conditions for credit on dealer invoices were not satisfied and the burden of proving admissibility was not discharged, the denial of credit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 405 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345293</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was denied where dealer invoices were found to be unsupported by any genuine movement of duty-paid goods. The dealer had obtained registration on the basis of forged rent documents, had no established godown or possession of premises, and the registration was cancelled retrospectively. On the record, the invoices reflected only paper transactions, and the manufacturer failed to prove actual purchase, transit sale, or proper verification of the dealer&#039;s identity and address. As the statutory conditions for credit on dealer invoices were not satisfied and the burden of proving admissibility was not discharged, the denial of credit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345293</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>