<?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>2009 (7) TMI 231 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75136</link>
    <description>Shortage of raw materials in the statutory stock account justified reversal of Modvat credit because the assessee failed to explain the discrepancy, and later affidavits did not displace the contemporaneous panchnama and statements. The burden remained on the credit claimant to account for receipt and consumption of inputs, so the reversal and corresponding penalty were upheld. Alleged clandestine removal could not be sustained on a third-party diary entry and an uncorroborated statement alone, since such a demand requires positive and affirmative evidence. As no independent proof of duty evasion was produced, the duty demand and connected penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 231 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75136</link>
      <description>Shortage of raw materials in the statutory stock account justified reversal of Modvat credit because the assessee failed to explain the discrepancy, and later affidavits did not displace the contemporaneous panchnama and statements. The burden remained on the credit claimant to account for receipt and consumption of inputs, so the reversal and corresponding penalty were upheld. Alleged clandestine removal could not be sustained on a third-party diary entry and an uncorroborated statement alone, since such a demand requires positive and affirmative evidence. As no independent proof of duty evasion was produced, the duty demand and connected penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>