<?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>2023 (8) TMI 245 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441266</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied for non-production of a covering letter where that objection was outside the remand scope and the letter had been furnished in de novo proceedings. Credit based on invoice records was upheld because the documents showed receipt of goods in the factory, and later clearance of inputs as such on reversal of credit did not affect the original entitlement. The department&#039;s insistence on a transporter&#039;s copy or defacement was held unnecessary for the relevant period, and credit could not be refused merely because the invoice copy produced was not the one preferred by the department. Credit supported by Certificate A was also admissible, and the minor discrepancy claim failed for lack of any specific adverse finding, with penalty not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2023 07:17:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 245 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441266</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit could not be denied for non-production of a covering letter where that objection was outside the remand scope and the letter had been furnished in de novo proceedings. Credit based on invoice records was upheld because the documents showed receipt of goods in the factory, and later clearance of inputs as such on reversal of credit did not affect the original entitlement. The department&#039;s insistence on a transporter&#039;s copy or defacement was held unnecessary for the relevant period, and credit could not be refused merely because the invoice copy produced was not the one preferred by the department. Credit supported by Certificate A was also admissible, and the minor discrepancy claim failed for lack of any specific adverse finding, with penalty not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>