<?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>2004 (6) TMI 155 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53058</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because physical stock verification showed unreconciled shortages where the record did not establish that credit was wrongly taken or that inputs were diverted, clandestinely used, or otherwise utilised in breach of the rules. The presence of substantial unreconciled excesses and the complexity of the computer-based inventory system indicated accounting or verification discrepancies rather than unlawful disposal. In the absence of evidence of incorrect availment or improper use, a small variation in stock position was insufficient to justify recovery under Rule 57-I, and the disallowance of credit was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2024 16:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 155 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53058</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because physical stock verification showed unreconciled shortages where the record did not establish that credit was wrongly taken or that inputs were diverted, clandestinely used, or otherwise utilised in breach of the rules. The presence of substantial unreconciled excesses and the complexity of the computer-based inventory system indicated accounting or verification discrepancies rather than unlawful disposal. In the absence of evidence of incorrect availment or improper use, a small variation in stock position was insufficient to justify recovery under Rule 57-I, and the disallowance of credit was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>