<?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 (9) TMI 606 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347849</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of cenvat credit on ingots purchased from a dealer by Matsyodari Steel &amp;amp; Alloys Pvt. Ltd. due to deficiencies in the documents and the failure to provide necessary proof of receipt and utilization of the goods in manufacturing processes. The decision was based on Rule 9(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, placing the burden of proof on the manufacturer to substantiate the admissibility of cenvat credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:50:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 606 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347849</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of cenvat credit on ingots purchased from a dealer by Matsyodari Steel &amp;amp; Alloys Pvt. Ltd. due to deficiencies in the documents and the failure to provide necessary proof of receipt and utilization of the goods in manufacturing processes. The decision was based on Rule 9(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, placing the burden of proof on the manufacturer to substantiate the admissibility of cenvat credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>