<?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 (10) TMI 549 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113194</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand and penalty imposition in an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case involved discrepancies in the quantity of goods cleared by the appellants, with a loose slip revealing excess clearances beyond invoice quantities. Despite objections regarding the examination and cross-examination process, the Tribunal emphasized the Commercial Manager&#039;s admissions of excess clearances and lack of retraction from statements. The failure to produce the Commercial Manager for cross-examination led to the dismissal of the appeal, underscoring the significance of substantiated evidence and procedural compliance in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 549 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113194</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand and penalty imposition in an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case involved discrepancies in the quantity of goods cleared by the appellants, with a loose slip revealing excess clearances beyond invoice quantities. Despite objections regarding the examination and cross-examination process, the Tribunal emphasized the Commercial Manager&#039;s admissions of excess clearances and lack of retraction from statements. The failure to produce the Commercial Manager for cross-examination led to the dismissal of the appeal, underscoring the significance of substantiated evidence and procedural compliance in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>