<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1644 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379200</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the order disallowing Cenvat credit for a manufacturer of iron/steel articles, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s due diligence in payment and record-keeping, compliance with Rule 9(3) of Cenvat Rules, and lack of evidence linking goods purchase to ineligible credit availment. The investigation was deemed insufficient, with allegations of circular trading and ineligible credit not substantiated solely based on invoices. The denial of cross-examination and time-barred demand were contested, highlighting legal flaws in the impugned order. Compliance with due diligence requirements led to the reversal of the decision against the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:06:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1644 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379200</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the order disallowing Cenvat credit for a manufacturer of iron/steel articles, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s due diligence in payment and record-keeping, compliance with Rule 9(3) of Cenvat Rules, and lack of evidence linking goods purchase to ineligible credit availment. The investigation was deemed insufficient, with allegations of circular trading and ineligible credit not substantiated solely based on invoices. The denial of cross-examination and time-barred demand were contested, highlighting legal flaws in the impugned order. Compliance with due diligence requirements led to the reversal of the decision against the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>