<?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 473 - CESTAT, new delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111106</link>
    <description>Uncorroborated private records were held insufficient to sustain a clandestine manufacture and removal allegation where they did not clearly link to the assessee&#039;s factory and were inconsistent with the statutory records. The Revenue also failed to show procurement of corresponding raw material, disposal of excess finished goods, or receipt of sale proceeds, so the dropped duty demand was sustained. Non-accountal of raw material was treated as only a technical lapse, and partial instances of evasion did not, by themselves, justify confirmation of the remaining disputed demand or enhancement of penalty without independent corroboration of production and removal. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected and the order dropping the demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 473 - CESTAT, new delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111106</link>
      <description>Uncorroborated private records were held insufficient to sustain a clandestine manufacture and removal allegation where they did not clearly link to the assessee&#039;s factory and were inconsistent with the statutory records. The Revenue also failed to show procurement of corresponding raw material, disposal of excess finished goods, or receipt of sale proceeds, so the dropped duty demand was sustained. Non-accountal of raw material was treated as only a technical lapse, and partial instances of evasion did not, by themselves, justify confirmation of the remaining disputed demand or enhancement of penalty without independent corroboration of production and removal. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected and the order dropping the demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>