Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)
Vipul Copper Pvt Ltd vs Ahmedabad-Ii on 17 August, 2022 cites

M/S. Malerkotla Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana on 29 May, 2008

8|Page E/12611,12049,12582/2019-SM Del.). It has been held in said judgments that the credit availed on the basis of invoices issued by the registered dealer, cannot be denied on the ground that the transporters have admitted the fact of non-transportation of the goods and the addresses of truck owners were found to be fake. Similarly, in the case of M/s. Malerkotla Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana, 2008 (229) E.L.T. 607 (Tri.-Delhi), it was held that a manufacturer cannot be denied the credit on the ground that registered dealer had not received the inputs.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Lloyds Metals & Engineering Ltd vs Commissioner Of Cen.Excise & Customs, ... on 24 March, 2008

4.2 I also observe that Tribunal in case of M/s. Lloyds Metal Engg. Co. v. CCE, Mumbai, 2004 (175) E.L.T. 132 (Tri.-Mumbai) has held that burden to prove non-receipt of the inputs is required to be discharged by Revenue by sufficient evidence. Where disputed consignments are entered in RG-23A Part I and Part II in chronological order, the allegations of non-receipt of the inputs cannot be upheld.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1