<?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>2002 (11) TMI 519 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107151</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine production and clearance must rest on conclusive, reliable evidence, and prima facie excess electricity consumption can justify fresh scrutiny of the evidentiary record. Although the departmental statements had been discredited in cross-examination, the annexures showing electricity usage, production figures, and other corroborative material still required reassessment to determine whether clandestine removal was established. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration by the original authority on the demand dispute, with penalty also left open for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:20:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 519 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107151</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine production and clearance must rest on conclusive, reliable evidence, and prima facie excess electricity consumption can justify fresh scrutiny of the evidentiary record. Although the departmental statements had been discredited in cross-examination, the annexures showing electricity usage, production figures, and other corroborative material still required reassessment to determine whether clandestine removal was established. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration by the original authority on the demand dispute, with penalty also left open for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>