<?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>2007 (3) TMI 607 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122286</link>
    <description>Excess stock of molasses found on physical verification was not successfully disputed where the inspection was conducted in the assessee&#039;s presence, the assistant general manager&#039;s statement on the inspection date admitted the excess stock, and no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy was given. Dip reading was treated as a recognised method for measuring liquid in tanks, and the assessee&#039;s reliance on other precedents failed because those cases turned on different facts and foam allowance had already been given here. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore sustained and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:52:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 607 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122286</link>
      <description>Excess stock of molasses found on physical verification was not successfully disputed where the inspection was conducted in the assessee&#039;s presence, the assistant general manager&#039;s statement on the inspection date admitted the excess stock, and no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy was given. Dip reading was treated as a recognised method for measuring liquid in tanks, and the assessee&#039;s reliance on other precedents failed because those cases turned on different facts and foam allowance had already been given here. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore sustained and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>