<?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 (3) TMI 658 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206848</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted the appellant an unconditional stay and set a final disposal date in a case concerning the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for alleged clandestine removal of gutkha. The judgment highlighted the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Revenue&#039;s findings, which primarily relied on declared average production without proof of clandestine activities. Emphasizing the importance of factual evidence and actual production data, the Tribunal cautioned against basing duty liability solely on declared averages and supported the appellant&#039;s argument for an unconditional stay due to the lack of evidence backing the Revenue&#039;s claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 658 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206848</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted the appellant an unconditional stay and set a final disposal date in a case concerning the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for alleged clandestine removal of gutkha. The judgment highlighted the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Revenue&#039;s findings, which primarily relied on declared average production without proof of clandestine activities. Emphasizing the importance of factual evidence and actual production data, the Tribunal cautioned against basing duty liability solely on declared averages and supported the appellant&#039;s argument for an unconditional stay due to the lack of evidence backing the Revenue&#039;s claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>