<?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 673 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205977</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous production records, internal working reports and employee statements were treated as sufficient to establish clandestine removal, diversion of production from a 100% EOU to the DTA, and clearances of speciality yarn to the Alleppey market. Unsupported explanations such as reprocessing, rewinding, quality rejection and moisture loss were rejected. Clearances of indigenous-jute yarn within the DTA entitlement were held eligible for exemption, while clearances outside entitlement and without required permission remained liable under the applicable duty framework. The duty and penalty consequences were not finally fixed because quantification, including the imported-jute component, was remanded for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 673 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205977</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous production records, internal working reports and employee statements were treated as sufficient to establish clandestine removal, diversion of production from a 100% EOU to the DTA, and clearances of speciality yarn to the Alleppey market. Unsupported explanations such as reprocessing, rewinding, quality rejection and moisture loss were rejected. Clearances of indigenous-jute yarn within the DTA entitlement were held eligible for exemption, while clearances outside entitlement and without required permission remained liable under the applicable duty framework. The duty and penalty consequences were not finally fixed because quantification, including the imported-jute component, was remanded for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>