<?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 1252 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427013</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied merely on SION norms, theoretical input-output calculations, or uncorroborated transporter statements when duty-paid invoices, statutory receipt records, banking evidence, and use of inputs in manufacture were established. The documentary record sufficiently proved receipt and consumption of inputs, while the third-party statements lacked independent corroboration and effective cross-examination; the credit demand was therefore unsustainable. Personal penalties under Rule 26 also failed because they were purely consequential to the alleged wrongful credit availment and no separate independent basis for penalty was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2022 06:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1252 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427013</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied merely on SION norms, theoretical input-output calculations, or uncorroborated transporter statements when duty-paid invoices, statutory receipt records, banking evidence, and use of inputs in manufacture were established. The documentary record sufficiently proved receipt and consumption of inputs, while the third-party statements lacked independent corroboration and effective cross-examination; the credit demand was therefore unsustainable. Personal penalties under Rule 26 also failed because they were purely consequential to the alleged wrongful credit availment and no separate independent basis for penalty was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>