<?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 660 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125809</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal can be established through a director&#039;s admission, private records, bank entries, delivery evidence and stock verification, and the extended limitation period applies where suppression supports the demand. The duty demand on unaccounted raw material consumption was upheld, but the challan-based demand was restricted to the amount actually admitted because the evidence did not support the full excess. Penalty under Section 11AC applied only to the post-introduction period and had to track the duty determined for that period, while the Rule 173Q and Rule 209A penalties were reduced in the overall circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:38:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 660 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125809</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal can be established through a director&#039;s admission, private records, bank entries, delivery evidence and stock verification, and the extended limitation period applies where suppression supports the demand. The duty demand on unaccounted raw material consumption was upheld, but the challan-based demand was restricted to the amount actually admitted because the evidence did not support the full excess. Penalty under Section 11AC applied only to the post-introduction period and had to track the duty determined for that period, while the Rule 173Q and Rule 209A penalties were reduced in the overall circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>