<?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 (12) TMI 486 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114853</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous import, voyage, survey, time-log, tank ullage and shipping records showed the cargo as LPG mix and indicated that blending occurred at the vessel&#039;s manifold or during voyage, not in the assessee&#039;s storage tanks. Technical evidence also supported the position that such mixing could not safely take place in refrigerated storage tanks because of pressure and temperature constraints. The Department&#039;s statements were inconsistent with the documentary record and were insufficient to displace it. On that basis, the alleged manufacture in the storage tanks was not proved, and the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 16:39:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 486 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114853</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous import, voyage, survey, time-log, tank ullage and shipping records showed the cargo as LPG mix and indicated that blending occurred at the vessel&#039;s manifold or during voyage, not in the assessee&#039;s storage tanks. Technical evidence also supported the position that such mixing could not safely take place in refrigerated storage tanks because of pressure and temperature constraints. The Department&#039;s statements were inconsistent with the documentary record and were insufficient to displace it. On that basis, the alleged manufacture in the storage tanks was not proved, and the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>