<?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 (12) TMI 347 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110238</link>
    <description>Balance sheet entries, sales tax returns and surrounding circumstances may sustain a clandestine removal demand where the assessee fails to support an alternative explanation with reliable documents; the principal duty demand was therefore upheld, except for the sealing wax component. A unit found to have no independent machinery or technical personnel and to remain under effective control of the assessee may be treated as a dummy unit, and its clearances attributed to the assessee; Rohit Enterprises was so treated. As to sealing wax, the demand was remitted for reconsideration because the record required examination of the resale claim and nil-duty position. Penalties were modified accordingly, with the firm&#039;s penalty reduced and the penalties on the dummy unit and partner set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:53:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 347 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110238</link>
      <description>Balance sheet entries, sales tax returns and surrounding circumstances may sustain a clandestine removal demand where the assessee fails to support an alternative explanation with reliable documents; the principal duty demand was therefore upheld, except for the sealing wax component. A unit found to have no independent machinery or technical personnel and to remain under effective control of the assessee may be treated as a dummy unit, and its clearances attributed to the assessee; Rohit Enterprises was so treated. As to sealing wax, the demand was remitted for reconsideration because the record required examination of the resale claim and nil-duty position. Penalties were modified accordingly, with the firm&#039;s penalty reduced and the penalties on the dummy unit and partner set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>