<?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>1999 (9) TMI 314 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92491</link>
    <description>Duty demand and penalties based on alleged short-accountal of limestone and suppressed cement production were found unsustainable because the documentary record, including challans, weighbridge slips and Form IV entries, supported the assessee&#039;s accounting of raw material receipts. An average truck-load assumption could not prove that all consignments were of the same quantity, particularly where no enquiry was made with one supplier. The Revenue also failed to prove receipt of consignments booked in another buyer&#039;s name or disprove the assessee&#039;s explanation. The suppressed-production theory failed because the formula used was only approximate, depended on variables such as purity and moisture, and lacked supporting investigation or experimental verification. The findings were in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:51:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129552" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 314 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92491</link>
      <description>Duty demand and penalties based on alleged short-accountal of limestone and suppressed cement production were found unsustainable because the documentary record, including challans, weighbridge slips and Form IV entries, supported the assessee&#039;s accounting of raw material receipts. An average truck-load assumption could not prove that all consignments were of the same quantity, particularly where no enquiry was made with one supplier. The Revenue also failed to prove receipt of consignments booked in another buyer&#039;s name or disprove the assessee&#039;s explanation. The suppressed-production theory failed because the formula used was only approximate, depended on variables such as purity and moisture, and lacked supporting investigation or experimental verification. The findings were in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>