<?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 (5) TMI 432 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115629</link>
    <description>Certified secondary evidence, including verified electricity and Octroi-related figures, may sustain an excise duty demand when corroborated by the assessee&#039;s internal registers and surrounding material; non-production of originals does not by itself exclude such evidence where the underlying entries are undisputed. Electricity consumption, calendering registers, price structure, instructions to omit processing details from challans, chemical consumption, and former employees&#039; statements collectively established that processed fabrics were misdeclared as calendered fabrics and clandestinely removed. The duty demand was therefore upheld. Monetary penalties were reduced, and confiscation of plant, machinery and related assets was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 15:48:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 432 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115629</link>
      <description>Certified secondary evidence, including verified electricity and Octroi-related figures, may sustain an excise duty demand when corroborated by the assessee&#039;s internal registers and surrounding material; non-production of originals does not by itself exclude such evidence where the underlying entries are undisputed. Electricity consumption, calendering registers, price structure, instructions to omit processing details from challans, chemical consumption, and former employees&#039; statements collectively established that processed fabrics were misdeclared as calendered fabrics and clandestinely removed. The duty demand was therefore upheld. Monetary penalties were reduced, and confiscation of plant, machinery and related assets was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>