<?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 (12) TMI 487 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204890</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods cannot be sustained on a solitary raw-material shortage and an uncorroborated statement alone; independent evidence linking the shortage to unlawful manufacture and removal is required. Here, all other raw materials and finished goods tallied with the records, and no corroborative material was produced to prove clandestine clearance. The Tribunal therefore treated the evidence as insufficient and extended the benefit of doubt to the assessee. The High Court found no legal infirmity in that factual appreciation and declined to interfere, leaving the Revenue without relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 487 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204890</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods cannot be sustained on a solitary raw-material shortage and an uncorroborated statement alone; independent evidence linking the shortage to unlawful manufacture and removal is required. Here, all other raw materials and finished goods tallied with the records, and no corroborative material was produced to prove clandestine clearance. The Tribunal therefore treated the evidence as insufficient and extended the benefit of doubt to the assessee. The High Court found no legal infirmity in that factual appreciation and declined to interfere, leaving the Revenue without relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>