<?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 (3) TMI 292 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53320</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was denied where duty-paid inputs were not shown to have been received in the factory and the managing director&#039;s unretracted statement indicated that only invoices, not goods, had been received. On the same facts, a duty demand on finished goods could not be sustained on the theory that the allegedly short inputs had been used in manufacture, because that approach was inconsistent with the finding of non-receipt. Acrylic staple fibre found in the factory without bills and without statutory entry was liable to confiscation, but the redemption fine and penalties were reduced, including the penalty on the managing director under Rule 209A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:05:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 292 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53320</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was denied where duty-paid inputs were not shown to have been received in the factory and the managing director&#039;s unretracted statement indicated that only invoices, not goods, had been received. On the same facts, a duty demand on finished goods could not be sustained on the theory that the allegedly short inputs had been used in manufacture, because that approach was inconsistent with the finding of non-receipt. Acrylic staple fibre found in the factory without bills and without statutory entry was liable to confiscation, but the redemption fine and penalties were reduced, including the penalty on the managing director under Rule 209A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>