<?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 (12) TMI 807 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389924</link>
    <description>Confirmation of reversed Cenvat credit was unsustainable where the show-cause notice contained no proposal for confirmation or appropriation, and the remand adjudication travelled beyond the notice. Differential duty on clearances to sister concerns could not be sustained through the extended limitation period in a revenue-neutral situation, particularly when the notice alleged no suppression, fraud, collusion, misstatement, or intent to evade duty. Penalty was also unwarranted for invoices lacking the authorised signatory&#039;s signature because the defect was procedural, rectifiable, and the inputs had admittedly been received. The assessee&#039;s relief was maintained in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:04:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 807 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389924</link>
      <description>Confirmation of reversed Cenvat credit was unsustainable where the show-cause notice contained no proposal for confirmation or appropriation, and the remand adjudication travelled beyond the notice. Differential duty on clearances to sister concerns could not be sustained through the extended limitation period in a revenue-neutral situation, particularly when the notice alleged no suppression, fraud, collusion, misstatement, or intent to evade duty. Penalty was also unwarranted for invoices lacking the authorised signatory&#039;s signature because the defect was procedural, rectifiable, and the inputs had admittedly been received. The assessee&#039;s relief was maintained in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>