<?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 752 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126415</link>
    <description>Shortage detected during stock verification did not, on these facts, justify penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the goods had been cleared under excise invoices, the duty had already been paid, and no material established clandestine removal. The absence of evidence of suppression or illicit clearance meant the penal provision could not be invoked. The duty demand itself remained valid and was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:20:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 752 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126415</link>
      <description>Shortage detected during stock verification did not, on these facts, justify penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the goods had been cleared under excise invoices, the duty had already been paid, and no material established clandestine removal. The absence of evidence of suppression or illicit clearance meant the penal provision could not be invoked. The duty demand itself remained valid and was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>