<?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>1991 (10) TMI 156 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82227</link>
    <description>Pending excise proceedings transferred under a statutory transfer provision were not annulled by the appellate order; the original show cause notice survived and could be adjudicated by the competent authority without issuing a fresh notice. On merits, the demand and penalty were sustained because the Department established a lack of correlation between transport receipts, invoices and duty-paying documents, while the assessee failed to rebut the evidence or substantiate the diversion explanation with material within its special knowledge. The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the confirmation of demand and penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:39:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 156 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82227</link>
      <description>Pending excise proceedings transferred under a statutory transfer provision were not annulled by the appellate order; the original show cause notice survived and could be adjudicated by the competent authority without issuing a fresh notice. On merits, the demand and penalty were sustained because the Department established a lack of correlation between transport receipts, invoices and duty-paying documents, while the assessee failed to rebut the evidence or substantiate the diversion explanation with material within its special knowledge. The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the confirmation of demand and penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>