<?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 540 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116981</link>
    <description>Fly ash exemption for asbestos cement sheets must be tested on the dry-weight percentage used in the finished product, and regular statutory records, daily production registers and monthly returns prevailed over uncorroborated private slips; the demand was therefore unsustainable and the exemption could not be denied. For alleged clandestine clearance of galvanized corrugated sheets, rough private records and a clearance chart were insufficient without proper reconciliation of quantities and defence records, so the duty issue could not be finally determined and was remitted for de novo adjudication. Penalties and interest were also left to be reconsidered in the fresh proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:32:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 540 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116981</link>
      <description>Fly ash exemption for asbestos cement sheets must be tested on the dry-weight percentage used in the finished product, and regular statutory records, daily production registers and monthly returns prevailed over uncorroborated private slips; the demand was therefore unsustainable and the exemption could not be denied. For alleged clandestine clearance of galvanized corrugated sheets, rough private records and a clearance chart were insufficient without proper reconciliation of quantities and defence records, so the duty issue could not be finally determined and was remitted for de novo adjudication. Penalties and interest were also left to be reconsidered in the fresh proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>