<?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 (11) TMI 538 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113757</link>
    <description>Duty demand, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained where the adjudicating authority relied only on an incomplete statutory register and ignored BIN cards and issue slips said to record receipt and issue of raw materials. The omission to write RG23A Part-I for the relevant period was treated as conclusive without examining the private records produced by the assessee, so the finding of shortages and excesses was based on an incomplete stock verification. Because the duty demand on alleged shortages, the demand on credit entries, confiscation and penalty all flowed from that flawed approach, the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 12:53:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 538 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113757</link>
      <description>Duty demand, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained where the adjudicating authority relied only on an incomplete statutory register and ignored BIN cards and issue slips said to record receipt and issue of raw materials. The omission to write RG23A Part-I for the relevant period was treated as conclusive without examining the private records produced by the assessee, so the finding of shortages and excesses was based on an incomplete stock verification. Because the duty demand on alleged shortages, the demand on credit entries, confiscation and penalty all flowed from that flawed approach, the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>