<?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>2006 (2) TMI 453 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117927</link>
    <description>Copper scrap arising in manufacture and sent to a job worker without payment of duty under the Rule 57F mechanism was treated as duty-free, so the demand on that scrap was not sustainable. Notebook entries, without reliable corroboration and when some entries matched cathode purchases, an export entry, and duty-paid clearances, were insufficient to establish clandestine removal, so that demand also failed. A stock discrepancy was treated as a normal stock-taking variation for penalty purposes: the duty attributable to the shortage was maintained, but no penalty was warranted on the assessee, and the Director&#039;s personal penalty was likewise set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:54:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 453 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117927</link>
      <description>Copper scrap arising in manufacture and sent to a job worker without payment of duty under the Rule 57F mechanism was treated as duty-free, so the demand on that scrap was not sustainable. Notebook entries, without reliable corroboration and when some entries matched cathode purchases, an export entry, and duty-paid clearances, were insufficient to establish clandestine removal, so that demand also failed. A stock discrepancy was treated as a normal stock-taking variation for penalty purposes: the duty attributable to the shortage was maintained, but no penalty was warranted on the assessee, and the Director&#039;s personal penalty was likewise set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>