<?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 (12) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87693</link>
    <description>Failure to disclose stock discrepancies and unaccounted clearances in statutory records was treated as suppression of facts, allowing invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal also found that the assessee&#039;s explanations for processing loss, hard waste and accounting adjustments were not satisfactorily supported by the stock verification and register entries, while the verification itself was conducted with the assessee&#039;s participation. On that basis, the alleged shortages were accepted as evidence of removal of goods without payment of duty, and the duty demand with consequential penalty was upheld. The appeal was dismissed in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:33:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87693</link>
      <description>Failure to disclose stock discrepancies and unaccounted clearances in statutory records was treated as suppression of facts, allowing invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal also found that the assessee&#039;s explanations for processing loss, hard waste and accounting adjustments were not satisfactorily supported by the stock verification and register entries, while the verification itself was conducted with the assessee&#039;s participation. On that basis, the alleged shortages were accepted as evidence of removal of goods without payment of duty, and the duty demand with consequential penalty was upheld. The appeal was dismissed in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>