<?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 (10) TMI 483 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122908</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal of processed man-made fabrics may be established through a cumulative chain of admissions, seized incriminating records, and corroborative statements, even where direct evidence of raw material procurement, electricity use, or banking trails is absent. Here, directors&#039; admissions, job cards, kachcha delivery challans, computer print-outs, and statements from related persons and merchant-manufacturers were treated as sufficient to prove clearance without excise invoices and against cash payment, so the duty demand and penalty were sustained. Refusal of cross-examination of panch witnesses and other persons did not vitiate the proceeding because the panchnama was undisputed and the relied-upon material was independently supported, causing no shown prejudice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 483 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122908</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal of processed man-made fabrics may be established through a cumulative chain of admissions, seized incriminating records, and corroborative statements, even where direct evidence of raw material procurement, electricity use, or banking trails is absent. Here, directors&#039; admissions, job cards, kachcha delivery challans, computer print-outs, and statements from related persons and merchant-manufacturers were treated as sufficient to prove clearance without excise invoices and against cash payment, so the duty demand and penalty were sustained. Refusal of cross-examination of panch witnesses and other persons did not vitiate the proceeding because the panchnama was undisputed and the relied-upon material was independently supported, causing no shown prejudice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>