<?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 (4) TMI 290 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358179</link>
    <description>The judgment dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeals, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The court found insufficient evidence to support allegations of non-receipt of inputs, emphasizing the necessity of proving alternate procurement sources to sustain claims of credit availed without actual receipt of materials. The decision underscored the importance of providing concrete evidence in such cases, citing relevant precedents to support the outcome.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 290 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358179</link>
      <description>The judgment dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeals, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The court found insufficient evidence to support allegations of non-receipt of inputs, emphasizing the necessity of proving alternate procurement sources to sustain claims of credit availed without actual receipt of materials. The decision underscored the importance of providing concrete evidence in such cases, citing relevant precedents to support the outcome.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>