<?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>2004 (4) TMI 324 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111049</link>
    <description>Duty demand for alleged shortage of raw material was held unsustainable because the shortage was not conclusively established, the material in process was not properly verified, and the show cause notice did not allege clandestine removal of the raw material or the finished goods made from it. The Department could not sustain a demand on a theory beyond the notice, and mere availing of Modvat credit did not justify confirmation of duty when reversal had not been sought. The redemption fine and penalty on confiscated goods and the tempo were reduced because the confiscation was not disputed, but the monetary liabilities were considered excessive on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:49:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 324 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111049</link>
      <description>Duty demand for alleged shortage of raw material was held unsustainable because the shortage was not conclusively established, the material in process was not properly verified, and the show cause notice did not allege clandestine removal of the raw material or the finished goods made from it. The Department could not sustain a demand on a theory beyond the notice, and mere availing of Modvat credit did not justify confirmation of duty when reversal had not been sought. The redemption fine and penalty on confiscated goods and the tempo were reduced because the confiscation was not disputed, but the monetary liabilities were considered excessive on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>