<?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 (3) TMI 492 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94758</link>
    <description>The Tribunal confirmed the Central Excise Duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s Ashwin Chemicals, Shri Pradipbhai R. Patel, and Shri Jayeshbhai J. Patel. The decision was based on corroborated statements indicating manufacturing activities shared between M/s Ashwin Chemicals and M/s Dinesh Chemicals, supported by evidence of goods clearance from both units. Despite arguments challenging the evidence as presumptive, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities&#039; decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete proof to counter the Department&#039;s assertions. The duty demand and penalties were upheld due to the observed pattern of functioning between the two entities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:59:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 492 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94758</link>
      <description>The Tribunal confirmed the Central Excise Duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s Ashwin Chemicals, Shri Pradipbhai R. Patel, and Shri Jayeshbhai J. Patel. The decision was based on corroborated statements indicating manufacturing activities shared between M/s Ashwin Chemicals and M/s Dinesh Chemicals, supported by evidence of goods clearance from both units. Despite arguments challenging the evidence as presumptive, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities&#039; decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete proof to counter the Department&#039;s assertions. The duty demand and penalties were upheld due to the observed pattern of functioning between the two entities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>