<?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 (9) TMI 415 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA-</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116608</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine removal of modvatable inputs failed where physical verification showed no shortage of inputs or finished goods, and the department produced no reliable evidence that the cleared goods were dutiable inputs removed without duty payment. The record also supported the assessee&#039;s case that some cleared goods were defective non-modvatable stock lying in the factory from the period when the final product was exempt. The burden to prove clandestine removal and dutiability remained on the department and was not displaced merely because every purchase document was not produced. The duty demand, and the related interest and penalty, were therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:20:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 415 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA-</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116608</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine removal of modvatable inputs failed where physical verification showed no shortage of inputs or finished goods, and the department produced no reliable evidence that the cleared goods were dutiable inputs removed without duty payment. The record also supported the assessee&#039;s case that some cleared goods were defective non-modvatable stock lying in the factory from the period when the final product was exempt. The burden to prove clandestine removal and dutiability remained on the department and was not displaced merely because every purchase document was not produced. The duty demand, and the related interest and penalty, were therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>