<?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 (3) TMI 337 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356634</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit is available only on prescribed documents under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and a manufacturer could not claim credit suo motu on supplementary invoices that remained in customers&#039; names after rejection. The prescribed cancellation procedure, including intimation to the Range Superintendent and forwarding of the original cancelled invoice, had not been followed, so the invoices did not become eligible documents for the assessee. The trade notice relied on was held inapplicable, and the view that suo motu credit or refund requires sanction of the proper officer was followed. Credit, interest, and penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 337 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356634</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit is available only on prescribed documents under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and a manufacturer could not claim credit suo motu on supplementary invoices that remained in customers&#039; names after rejection. The prescribed cancellation procedure, including intimation to the Range Superintendent and forwarding of the original cancelled invoice, had not been followed, so the invoices did not become eligible documents for the assessee. The trade notice relied on was held inapplicable, and the view that suo motu credit or refund requires sanction of the proper officer was followed. Credit, interest, and penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>