<?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>2003 (7) TMI 434 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107766</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of diesel engines and generating sets failed because the Department relied mainly on bank records and invoices prepared for loan purposes without producing tangible, corroborative evidence of actual manufacture or removal. The absence of seized excess goods, shortages in raw materials or finished goods, recorded farmer statements, and documents sought by the noticee weakened the case, while reliance on untested statements without cross-examination was insufficient. The existence of regular purchase invoices and the lack of support from the income-tax enquiry further undermined the charge. Misdescription in some invoices, by itself, did not establish clandestine removal, and the penalties on connected persons for alleged non-duty-paid goods were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:46:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 434 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107766</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of diesel engines and generating sets failed because the Department relied mainly on bank records and invoices prepared for loan purposes without producing tangible, corroborative evidence of actual manufacture or removal. The absence of seized excess goods, shortages in raw materials or finished goods, recorded farmer statements, and documents sought by the noticee weakened the case, while reliance on untested statements without cross-examination was insufficient. The existence of regular purchase invoices and the lack of support from the income-tax enquiry further undermined the charge. Misdescription in some invoices, by itself, did not establish clandestine removal, and the penalties on connected persons for alleged non-duty-paid goods were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>