<?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 166 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82736</link>
    <description>Uncorroborated private correspondence, partial production-ratio data and price comparisons were treated as insufficient to prove clandestine removal of higher-grade plywood as lower-grade goods. The commentary notes that, without examination of the buyer or the document&#039;s author and without testing the clarification by cross-examination, the material only raised suspicion and could not sustain the duty demand. It further states that the extended limitation period depended on proof of suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty; once the substantive allegation failed, that foundation also fell away. On the same reasoning, penalty was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:38:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 166 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82736</link>
      <description>Uncorroborated private correspondence, partial production-ratio data and price comparisons were treated as insufficient to prove clandestine removal of higher-grade plywood as lower-grade goods. The commentary notes that, without examination of the buyer or the document&#039;s author and without testing the clarification by cross-examination, the material only raised suspicion and could not sustain the duty demand. It further states that the extended limitation period depended on proof of suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty; once the substantive allegation failed, that foundation also fell away. On the same reasoning, penalty was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>