<?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 (11) TMI 536 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125228</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous stock verification can sustain a central excise duty demand for shortages in factory stock, and the demand will not be re-quantified on the basis of an unproven distinction between filter and non-filter cigarettes or on alleged adjustment against stock in a duty-paid godown where interchangeability is not established. Equal penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed at the appellate stage when no such penalty was levied in the original adjudication and the order was not reviewed on that basis. The assessee&#039;s challenge to the duty demand failed, while the request for enhancement of penalty was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:45:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 536 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125228</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous stock verification can sustain a central excise duty demand for shortages in factory stock, and the demand will not be re-quantified on the basis of an unproven distinction between filter and non-filter cigarettes or on alleged adjustment against stock in a duty-paid godown where interchangeability is not established. Equal penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed at the appellate stage when no such penalty was levied in the original adjudication and the order was not reviewed on that basis. The assessee&#039;s challenge to the duty demand failed, while the request for enhancement of penalty was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>