<?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>2000 (12) TMI 683 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99402</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal of drums and scrap was upheld where discrepancies between production reports and the RGI, shortages in finished drums, and unaccounted scrap or waste were supported by statements, panchanama material, and evidence from the refinery and job-work chain. The Tribunal found the plea of separate registers for duty-paid and exempt goods unsubstantiated because no timely disclosure or supporting records were produced. A challenge based on denial of natural justice also failed, as the appellant had an opportunity after remand, did not effectively avail personal hearing, and did not place convincing material before the adjudicating authority. Duty demand, confiscation, and penalties were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:55:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 683 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99402</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal of drums and scrap was upheld where discrepancies between production reports and the RGI, shortages in finished drums, and unaccounted scrap or waste were supported by statements, panchanama material, and evidence from the refinery and job-work chain. The Tribunal found the plea of separate registers for duty-paid and exempt goods unsubstantiated because no timely disclosure or supporting records were produced. A challenge based on denial of natural justice also failed, as the appellant had an opportunity after remand, did not effectively avail personal hearing, and did not place convincing material before the adjudicating authority. Duty demand, confiscation, and penalties were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>