<?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 (5) TMI 380 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359816</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on inputs purchased through a registered first stage dealer was treated as admissible where the recipient established receipt of goods under duty-paying documents, payment through banking channels, and corresponding statutory entries. The analysis accepted that a bona fide buyer is not required to trace the dealer&#039;s upstream records beyond the documents supporting its own transaction. Investigation into the original manufacturer, by itself, was insufficient to deny credit to the recipient when actual receipt was proved. As credit was allowed, penalties based on alleged fraudulent availment also did not survive on the facts accepted by the majority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2018 10:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 380 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359816</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on inputs purchased through a registered first stage dealer was treated as admissible where the recipient established receipt of goods under duty-paying documents, payment through banking channels, and corresponding statutory entries. The analysis accepted that a bona fide buyer is not required to trace the dealer&#039;s upstream records beyond the documents supporting its own transaction. Investigation into the original manufacturer, by itself, was insufficient to deny credit to the recipient when actual receipt was proved. As credit was allowed, penalties based on alleged fraudulent availment also did not survive on the facts accepted by the majority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>