<?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>1995 (11) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84730</link>
    <description>Uncorroborated private notebooks, sale bills and statements were insufficient to prove clandestine clearance of latex foam articles beyond the exemption limit, so the duty demand, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. A purchaser&#039;s denial without supporting evidence did not displace the assessee&#039;s explanation, and a limited period of alleged unaccounted production could not be extrapolated across the entire demand period. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the show cause notice lacked a clear statutory basis and a proper allegation of suppression. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:24:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84730</link>
      <description>Uncorroborated private notebooks, sale bills and statements were insufficient to prove clandestine clearance of latex foam articles beyond the exemption limit, so the duty demand, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. A purchaser&#039;s denial without supporting evidence did not displace the assessee&#039;s explanation, and a limited period of alleged unaccounted production could not be extrapolated across the entire demand period. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the show cause notice lacked a clear statutory basis and a proper allegation of suppression. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>