<?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 (6) TMI 842 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126699</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable where stock verification showed shortage of inputs, duty had been paid, and the record contained no material to establish clandestine removal. The shortage was accepted but no explanation was given for it; however, absence of proof of suppression or clandestine removal meant the statutory ingredients for penalty were not satisfied. The duty demand was upheld, but the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 842 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126699</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable where stock verification showed shortage of inputs, duty had been paid, and the record contained no material to establish clandestine removal. The shortage was accepted but no explanation was given for it; however, absence of proof of suppression or clandestine removal meant the statutory ingredients for penalty were not satisfied. The duty demand was upheld, but the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>