<?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>1998 (11) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90211</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision confirming a demand of Rs. 23,48,548.50 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s Kanoria Chemical &amp;amp; Industries Ltd. The case, centered on the shortage of HDPE bags used for packing caustic soda flakes without duty payment, lacked concrete evidence to prove clandestine removal of the product. The Tribunal found the department&#039;s arguments regarding discrepancies in production quantities and concentration of flakes insufficient. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of substantial proof to support the department&#039;s claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:15:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90211</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision confirming a demand of Rs. 23,48,548.50 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s Kanoria Chemical &amp;amp; Industries Ltd. The case, centered on the shortage of HDPE bags used for packing caustic soda flakes without duty payment, lacked concrete evidence to prove clandestine removal of the product. The Tribunal found the department&#039;s arguments regarding discrepancies in production quantities and concentration of flakes insufficient. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of substantial proof to support the department&#039;s claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>