<?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>2025 (12) TMI 364 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782824</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai-AT dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant ineligible for CENVAT credit taken on melting scrap on the basis of endorsed Bills of Entry. The Tribunal found that melting scrap was not an input for the appellant&#039;s final product (TMT bars), the appellant lacked requisite facilities to use such scrap as input at the relevant time, and there was no evidence of physical receipt or movement of the goods. Endorsement of Bills of Entry without actual transfer of goods did not satisfy Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal upheld the demand, extended limitation on the ground of suppression, and sustained penalties for wrongful availment and transfer of credit based on mere paper transactions without genuine sale or purchase.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=869384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 364 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782824</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai-AT dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant ineligible for CENVAT credit taken on melting scrap on the basis of endorsed Bills of Entry. The Tribunal found that melting scrap was not an input for the appellant&#039;s final product (TMT bars), the appellant lacked requisite facilities to use such scrap as input at the relevant time, and there was no evidence of physical receipt or movement of the goods. Endorsement of Bills of Entry without actual transfer of goods did not satisfy Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal upheld the demand, extended limitation on the ground of suppression, and sustained penalties for wrongful availment and transfer of credit based on mere paper transactions without genuine sale or purchase.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>