<?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>1997 (3) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87516</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand of Rs. 3,54,902.85 and a personal penalty of Rs. 75,000 imposed by the Collector, Central Excise. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of clandestine production and removal of MS ingots/steel castings, stating the case was built on presumption and surmises. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the six-month limitation period. The appellant&#039;s regular submission of raw material and production returns indicated no suppression or misstatement, leading to a successful appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:23:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87516</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand of Rs. 3,54,902.85 and a personal penalty of Rs. 75,000 imposed by the Collector, Central Excise. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of clandestine production and removal of MS ingots/steel castings, stating the case was built on presumption and surmises. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the six-month limitation period. The appellant&#039;s regular submission of raw material and production returns indicated no suppression or misstatement, leading to a successful appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>