<?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 536 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116668</link>
    <description>Fictitious invoices recovered from the assessee&#039;s premises, supported by the un-retracted statements of the authorised representative, excise clerk and director, were sufficient to establish clandestine removal of excisable goods and sustain the duty demand. On penalty, the amount imposed under Section 11AC was reduced because payment had been made before the show cause notice, and the separate penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside as unnecessary on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:36:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 536 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116668</link>
      <description>Fictitious invoices recovered from the assessee&#039;s premises, supported by the un-retracted statements of the authorised representative, excise clerk and director, were sufficient to establish clandestine removal of excisable goods and sustain the duty demand. On penalty, the amount imposed under Section 11AC was reduced because payment had been made before the show cause notice, and the separate penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside as unnecessary on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>