<?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>2008 (4) TMI 595 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123670</link>
    <description>A demand for alleged clandestine removal based only on factory shortages was not sustainable where the record also showed excess stock that neutralised the shortage. The adjudicating authority had considered the assessee&#039;s stock chart and found that the shortage claim stood reconciled. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence of illicit removal, the allegation of clandestine clearance was not established, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:45:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 595 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123670</link>
      <description>A demand for alleged clandestine removal based only on factory shortages was not sustainable where the record also showed excess stock that neutralised the shortage. The adjudicating authority had considered the assessee&#039;s stock chart and found that the shortage claim stood reconciled. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence of illicit removal, the allegation of clandestine clearance was not established, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>