<?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>2001 (2) TMI 521 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96061</link>
    <description>Discrepancies between a private Progressive Moulding Register and the statutory RG-1 register were relied on to allege clandestine manufacture and removal of tyres. The Tribunal found that the duty demand was built entirely on production figures derived from those registers, but the Revenue&#039;s own reconciliation produced successive revised figures that materially differed from the show cause notice and from earlier reconciled figures. Those inconsistencies made the foundational data unreliable, and there was no stable or credible evidence to support excess production or clandestine removals. The duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:40:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 521 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96061</link>
      <description>Discrepancies between a private Progressive Moulding Register and the statutory RG-1 register were relied on to allege clandestine manufacture and removal of tyres. The Tribunal found that the duty demand was built entirely on production figures derived from those registers, but the Revenue&#039;s own reconciliation produced successive revised figures that materially differed from the show cause notice and from earlier reconciled figures. Those inconsistencies made the foundational data unreliable, and there was no stable or credible evidence to support excess production or clandestine removals. The duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>