<?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>1996 (5) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72271</link>
    <description>Inflated sales figures furnished to the Department of Industries, by themselves, were insufficient to sustain excise duty demand and penalty for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that such declarations, made for a different administrative purpose, required independent corroboration from the assessee&#039;s records or other positive evidence. Here, the verification covered only part of the relevant period, and the assessee&#039;s excise records and raw material consumption data were not properly tested against the allegation. On that basis, the demand and penalty were set aside for want of sufficient proof.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 17:03:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72271</link>
      <description>Inflated sales figures furnished to the Department of Industries, by themselves, were insufficient to sustain excise duty demand and penalty for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that such declarations, made for a different administrative purpose, required independent corroboration from the assessee&#039;s records or other positive evidence. Here, the verification covered only part of the relevant period, and the assessee&#039;s excise records and raw material consumption data were not properly tested against the allegation. On that basis, the demand and penalty were set aside for want of sufficient proof.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>