<?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>1994 (4) TMI 196 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85125</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on third-party ledger entries and invoices alone where no direct nexus with the assessee is proved. The Tribunal noted that the alleged linkman was not traced, there was no evidence of cash dealings or instructions from the assessee, and the assessee&#039;s statement did not amount to an admission. It also found that the adjudicating authority should have examined other production indicators, including electricity consumption and manufacturing capacity, before confirming demand and penalty. On the evidence relied upon, the impugned order was unsustainable and required reconsideration on a fuller factual basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:15:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 196 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85125</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on third-party ledger entries and invoices alone where no direct nexus with the assessee is proved. The Tribunal noted that the alleged linkman was not traced, there was no evidence of cash dealings or instructions from the assessee, and the assessee&#039;s statement did not amount to an admission. It also found that the adjudicating authority should have examined other production indicators, including electricity consumption and manufacturing capacity, before confirming demand and penalty. On the evidence relied upon, the impugned order was unsustainable and required reconsideration on a fuller factual basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>