<?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>2000 (10) TMI 926 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122420</link>
    <description>A charge of clandestine manufacture and removal of M.S. ingots cannot be sustained on private records and suspicion alone; it requires reliable, corroborative evidence of production, raw material consumption and actual clearances. The Tribunal found the small pink gate passes, parallel log sheets, scrap inward reports and production analysis reports insufficiently supported by independent material. No purchaser or raw material supplier statements were recorded, no excess finished stock or raw material discrepancy was found, and the surrounding circumstances undermined the alleged records. On that basis, the alleged clandestine removal was not proved and the demand of duty, interest and penalties failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:45:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 926 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122420</link>
      <description>A charge of clandestine manufacture and removal of M.S. ingots cannot be sustained on private records and suspicion alone; it requires reliable, corroborative evidence of production, raw material consumption and actual clearances. The Tribunal found the small pink gate passes, parallel log sheets, scrap inward reports and production analysis reports insufficiently supported by independent material. No purchaser or raw material supplier statements were recorded, no excess finished stock or raw material discrepancy was found, and the surrounding circumstances undermined the alleged records. On that basis, the alleged clandestine removal was not proved and the demand of duty, interest and penalties failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>