<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1037 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153645</link>
    <description>Clandestine manufacture and clearance of veneer and plywood must be supported by tangible, corroborative evidence; assumptions, incomplete verification, and uncorroborated documents are insufficient. The Revenue&#039;s case failed because purchase invoices and sales-tax returns indicating trading activity were not meaningfully investigated, there was no enquiry at the consignee or buyer level, and no proof that the goods were manufactured in the respondent&#039;s factory. Reliance on a single invoice, vehicle capacity, and estimated quantities without proof of grade, size, thickness, or actual delivery particulars was inadequate. A procedural lapse under Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not, on these facts, sustain the duty demand or penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:16:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1037 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153645</link>
      <description>Clandestine manufacture and clearance of veneer and plywood must be supported by tangible, corroborative evidence; assumptions, incomplete verification, and uncorroborated documents are insufficient. The Revenue&#039;s case failed because purchase invoices and sales-tax returns indicating trading activity were not meaningfully investigated, there was no enquiry at the consignee or buyer level, and no proof that the goods were manufactured in the respondent&#039;s factory. Reliance on a single invoice, vehicle capacity, and estimated quantities without proof of grade, size, thickness, or actual delivery particulars was inadequate. A procedural lapse under Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not, on these facts, sustain the duty demand or penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>