<?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 470 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358359</link>
    <description>Where reliable records established receipt and use of petroleum coke, Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because of procedural defects such as invoice endorsement issues or transportation route irregularities. The documents, including invoices, lorry receipts, consignment notes, coastal cargo records and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate, were treated as sufficient proof of actual receipt and accounting of inputs. On the penalty question, Rule 15(1) required wrongful credit and utilisation, and no independent basis for penal action was shown once the demand had been dropped. The credit was upheld and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 470 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358359</link>
      <description>Where reliable records established receipt and use of petroleum coke, Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because of procedural defects such as invoice endorsement issues or transportation route irregularities. The documents, including invoices, lorry receipts, consignment notes, coastal cargo records and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate, were treated as sufficient proof of actual receipt and accounting of inputs. On the penalty question, Rule 15(1) required wrongful credit and utilisation, and no independent basis for penal action was shown once the demand had been dropped. The credit was upheld and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>