<?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 (7) TMI 1934 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280145</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied solely because inputs were received from sister concerns on stock transfer basis rather than by purchase, where the inputs were received in the factory and their duty-paid character was undisputed. Documentary proof of duty payment was also accepted, and the credit scheme did not require purchase as a mandatory condition on these facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:16:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1934 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280145</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied solely because inputs were received from sister concerns on stock transfer basis rather than by purchase, where the inputs were received in the factory and their duty-paid character was undisputed. Documentary proof of duty payment was also accepted, and the credit scheme did not require purchase as a mandatory condition on these facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>