<?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>2011 (9) TMI 117 - CESTAT, NEWDELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206647</link>
    <description>Procedural defects in weighment and stock verification rendered the alleged seizure unsustainable where the remand direction to cross-examine supporting witnesses was not complied with. The weighing slips were unsigned by the witnesses, and the record did not reliably establish that the stock check was properly conducted. On that basis, the adjudicating authority was found to have breached natural justice and failed to address the remand mandate, so the alleged stock discrepancy could not be safely used to sustain duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine or penalties. The Revenue accordingly showed no ground to interfere with the order under challenge, and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 117 - CESTAT, NEWDELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206647</link>
      <description>Procedural defects in weighment and stock verification rendered the alleged seizure unsustainable where the remand direction to cross-examine supporting witnesses was not complied with. The weighing slips were unsigned by the witnesses, and the record did not reliably establish that the stock check was properly conducted. On that basis, the adjudicating authority was found to have breached natural justice and failed to address the remand mandate, so the alleged stock discrepancy could not be safely used to sustain duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine or penalties. The Revenue accordingly showed no ground to interfere with the order under challenge, and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>