<?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 (10) TMI 94 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206914</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal require reliable, corroborated evidence showing both unaccounted manufacture and clearance; untested third-party statements and loose documents are insufficient, especially where requested cross-examination is denied. Here, the duty demand and penalties on the main appellant were set aside because the Revenue relied mainly on recovered papers and statements without independent corroboration, including evidence of unaccounted raw material procurement or abnormal electricity use. The penalties on the connected appellants also fell once the foundational demand failed, as they were purely consequential and had no independent basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2025 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 94 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206914</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal require reliable, corroborated evidence showing both unaccounted manufacture and clearance; untested third-party statements and loose documents are insufficient, especially where requested cross-examination is denied. Here, the duty demand and penalties on the main appellant were set aside because the Revenue relied mainly on recovered papers and statements without independent corroboration, including evidence of unaccounted raw material procurement or abnormal electricity use. The penalties on the connected appellants also fell once the foundational demand failed, as they were purely consequential and had no independent basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>