<?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>2005 (2) TMI 599 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115080</link>
    <description>Stock variation in the manufacture of copper alloy ingots, where raw material was not issued variety-wise, was held insufficient by itself to justify confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q. The excess in one finished-goods item could be adjusted against the shortage in another, and the residual discrepancy was negligible. The explanation that the excess represented production not yet entered in the accounts was not disproved merely because the accounts had not been written up after a particular date. In the absence of any allegation or proof of clandestine production or removal, the stock discrepancy alone could not sustain adverse action, and the confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:13:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 599 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115080</link>
      <description>Stock variation in the manufacture of copper alloy ingots, where raw material was not issued variety-wise, was held insufficient by itself to justify confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q. The excess in one finished-goods item could be adjusted against the shortage in another, and the residual discrepancy was negligible. The explanation that the excess represented production not yet entered in the accounts was not disproved merely because the accounts had not been written up after a particular date. In the absence of any allegation or proof of clandestine production or removal, the stock discrepancy alone could not sustain adverse action, and the confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>