<?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 (5) TMI 666 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125929</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal cannot be sustained on a theoretical formula alone when no corroborative evidence shows unrecorded manufacture or clearance. The Tribunal noted that laminated fabrics were cleared under Chapter X procedure and that the assessee had produced technical material, including a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, BIS standards and an IPCL letter indicating that lamination yields may vary. Because the adjudication order did not properly consider this material and relied mainly on a ratio calculation and excess stock found during search, the demands on items other than the seized goods and related HDPE tapes were set aside. The penalty was reduced accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 18:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 666 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125929</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal cannot be sustained on a theoretical formula alone when no corroborative evidence shows unrecorded manufacture or clearance. The Tribunal noted that laminated fabrics were cleared under Chapter X procedure and that the assessee had produced technical material, including a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, BIS standards and an IPCL letter indicating that lamination yields may vary. Because the adjudication order did not properly consider this material and relied mainly on a ratio calculation and excess stock found during search, the demands on items other than the seized goods and related HDPE tapes were set aside. The penalty was reduced accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>