<?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 (4) TMI 653 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126169</link>
    <description>Confiscation of excess raw material was unjustified where the material was found inside the factory and was explained as segregated scrap from duty-free imports. Alleged shortage of finished goods, by itself, did not establish clandestine removal because the record lacked corroborative evidence of removal, sale, transport, or other positive material, and the Revenue failed to discharge its burden. The duty demand, penalty and redemption fine were therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 653 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126169</link>
      <description>Confiscation of excess raw material was unjustified where the material was found inside the factory and was explained as segregated scrap from duty-free imports. Alleged shortage of finished goods, by itself, did not establish clandestine removal because the record lacked corroborative evidence of removal, sale, transport, or other positive material, and the Revenue failed to discharge its burden. The duty demand, penalty and redemption fine were therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>