<?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 (3) TMI 679 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125346</link>
    <description>Evaporation loss in tank-wise stock verification had to be computed on a rational production-based basis over the relevant operating period, not by limiting the loss to stock found on the visit date; the computation issue was therefore remanded for fresh determination. A shortage-based duty demand was sustained because it arose from the assessee&#039;s own records showing non-accountal of production and was independent of the remand on reclassification. The penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also upheld, as the shortages, excess stock, and accountal discrepancies provided no ground for interference merely because one issue was sent back for recomputation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:19:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 679 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125346</link>
      <description>Evaporation loss in tank-wise stock verification had to be computed on a rational production-based basis over the relevant operating period, not by limiting the loss to stock found on the visit date; the computation issue was therefore remanded for fresh determination. A shortage-based duty demand was sustained because it arose from the assessee&#039;s own records showing non-accountal of production and was independent of the remand on reclassification. The penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also upheld, as the shortages, excess stock, and accountal discrepancies provided no ground for interference merely because one issue was sent back for recomputation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>