<?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 (3) TMI 612 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125058</link>
    <description>A duty demand on alleged short receipt of furnace oil and other oils procured under Chapter X procedure was found unsustainable because the department did not prove actual non-receipt of inputs. The assessee had produced reconciliation material, railway documents, a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and invoice-wise quantity reconciliation, which negated the short-receipt allegation. The temperature variation allowance was treated as a volume recalculation under the ASTM table-based 15 C standard for petroleum products, not as evidence of transit loss or non-receipt. The legal point stated is that an invoice price adjustment or temperature-based reduction, by itself, does not establish non-receipt; the burden remains on revenue to prove actual shortage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:49:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 612 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125058</link>
      <description>A duty demand on alleged short receipt of furnace oil and other oils procured under Chapter X procedure was found unsustainable because the department did not prove actual non-receipt of inputs. The assessee had produced reconciliation material, railway documents, a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and invoice-wise quantity reconciliation, which negated the short-receipt allegation. The temperature variation allowance was treated as a volume recalculation under the ASTM table-based 15 C standard for petroleum products, not as evidence of transit loss or non-receipt. The legal point stated is that an invoice price adjustment or temperature-based reduction, by itself, does not establish non-receipt; the burden remains on revenue to prove actual shortage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>