<?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>2022 (8) TMI 699 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426460</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous invoices, challans, test reports and technical material supported Modvat credit on inputs treated as alloy steel, and the Tribunal held that denial based on isolated descriptions, belated statements or disregard of accepted sister-concern treatment was unsustainable. It also stated that internal invoicing arrangements within the supplier did not by themselves breach credit conditions where duty-paid goods were established, and that unsupported supplier statements could not displace documentary evidence without proper cross-examination. On limitation, the document states that extended period, interest and penalty could not be invoked absent specific suppression, especially where the department had already examined the records and the dispute was one of classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 699 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426460</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous invoices, challans, test reports and technical material supported Modvat credit on inputs treated as alloy steel, and the Tribunal held that denial based on isolated descriptions, belated statements or disregard of accepted sister-concern treatment was unsustainable. It also stated that internal invoicing arrangements within the supplier did not by themselves breach credit conditions where duty-paid goods were established, and that unsupported supplier statements could not displace documentary evidence without proper cross-examination. On limitation, the document states that extended period, interest and penalty could not be invoked absent specific suppression, especially where the department had already examined the records and the dispute was one of classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>