<?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 (11) TMI 280 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350401</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on imported HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE inputs was held unsustainable only where the Revenue relied on uncorroborated employee statements and an expert opinion, while the assessee produced bills of entry, transport documents and manufacturing records showing receipt and use of the inputs. Alleged shortages of finished goods and inputs also did not justify duty demands because the contemporaneous stock, invoice and job-work records were not rebutted by independent evidence, and mere stock discrepancy was insufficient to prove clandestine removal. Penalties under Section 11AC and the Central Excise Rules likewise fell once the underlying demands and evidentiary basis failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2017 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 280 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350401</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on imported HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE inputs was held unsustainable only where the Revenue relied on uncorroborated employee statements and an expert opinion, while the assessee produced bills of entry, transport documents and manufacturing records showing receipt and use of the inputs. Alleged shortages of finished goods and inputs also did not justify duty demands because the contemporaneous stock, invoice and job-work records were not rebutted by independent evidence, and mere stock discrepancy was insufficient to prove clandestine removal. Penalties under Section 11AC and the Central Excise Rules likewise fell once the underlying demands and evidentiary basis failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>