<?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>2009 (1) TMI 586 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125138</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the company, vacating the demand of duty and penalty of Rs. 93,104/-. The tribunal emphasized the lack of substantial evidence and the unreliability of witness statements, leading to the overturning of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The penalty was deemed unwarranted based on insufficient evidence, resulting in the appeal being allowed and the demand and penalty set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:20:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 586 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125138</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the company, vacating the demand of duty and penalty of Rs. 93,104/-. The tribunal emphasized the lack of substantial evidence and the unreliability of witness statements, leading to the overturning of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The penalty was deemed unwarranted based on insufficient evidence, resulting in the appeal being allowed and the demand and penalty set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>