<?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>2018 (2) TMI 284 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354863</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was held inadmissible on inputs found short during stock verification where the shortages were substantial, recurrent, and unsupported by credible evidence of evaporation, heating loss, or measurement variance. The assessee&#039;s failure to reverse credit or disclose the shortages contemporaneously, together with internal accounting of the missing inputs as consumption, supported a finding that the inputs were not used in manufacture and that suppression of facts justified invocation of the extended period. The broader principles on credit for shortages were distinguished because the loss was not a minor or ordinary tolerance-level variation. The demand, interest, and penalty were sustained, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 07:50:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 284 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354863</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was held inadmissible on inputs found short during stock verification where the shortages were substantial, recurrent, and unsupported by credible evidence of evaporation, heating loss, or measurement variance. The assessee&#039;s failure to reverse credit or disclose the shortages contemporaneously, together with internal accounting of the missing inputs as consumption, supported a finding that the inputs were not used in manufacture and that suppression of facts justified invocation of the extended period. The broader principles on credit for shortages were distinguished because the loss was not a minor or ordinary tolerance-level variation. The demand, interest, and penalty were sustained, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>