<?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 (8) TMI 1008 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152004</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine removal of cotton yarn could not be fully sustained on private notebooks, gate passes and related records alone, because the material was not systematic and lacked independent corroboration such as buyer evidence, sale proceeds or other supporting proof; the broad demand was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication on the identified quantity and penalty was to be reconsidered. The shortage of cotton yarn found during inspection was, however, not satisfactorily explained, as the later claim that it represented defective cheese yarn was not established on the facts, and that finding was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:53:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1008 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152004</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine removal of cotton yarn could not be fully sustained on private notebooks, gate passes and related records alone, because the material was not systematic and lacked independent corroboration such as buyer evidence, sale proceeds or other supporting proof; the broad demand was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication on the identified quantity and penalty was to be reconsidered. The shortage of cotton yarn found during inspection was, however, not satisfactorily explained, as the later claim that it represented defective cheese yarn was not established on the facts, and that finding was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>