<?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>1985 (2) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72233</link>
    <description>A duty demand is not time-barred where the show-cause notice, read as a whole, alleges suppression, non-accountal and clandestine removal; the absence of a separate year-specific suppression allegation did not defeat the demand. The alleged clearances to the Director General of Supplies &amp; Disposals failed on the correspondence showing no despatch from the factory, so that part of the case was not proved. The remaining allegations of non-accountal and clandestine removal were established through records, invoices, delivery challans, lorry receipts and seized goods, and the assessee did not displace that evidence. Post-clearance price reductions did not change assessable value, and the penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2011 14:49:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72233</link>
      <description>A duty demand is not time-barred where the show-cause notice, read as a whole, alleges suppression, non-accountal and clandestine removal; the absence of a separate year-specific suppression allegation did not defeat the demand. The alleged clearances to the Director General of Supplies &amp; Disposals failed on the correspondence showing no despatch from the factory, so that part of the case was not proved. The remaining allegations of non-accountal and clandestine removal were established through records, invoices, delivery challans, lorry receipts and seized goods, and the assessee did not displace that evidence. Post-clearance price reductions did not change assessable value, and the penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>