<?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 (7) TMI 442 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207704</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal of pan masala goods can be established by a combination of unexplained excess finished stock, shortage and unaccounted procurement of raw material, and corroborative transport evidence showing clearance without invoices. Here, unaccounted gutka pouches found during the factory visit remained unexplained, the shortage of supari matched supplier records showing unrecorded purchases, and transport receipts with the transporter&#039;s statement supported removal of consignments from the factory. On that evidentiary basis, confiscation of the seized goods, confirmation of duty demand, and penalty were upheld in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 442 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207704</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal of pan masala goods can be established by a combination of unexplained excess finished stock, shortage and unaccounted procurement of raw material, and corroborative transport evidence showing clearance without invoices. Here, unaccounted gutka pouches found during the factory visit remained unexplained, the shortage of supari matched supplier records showing unrecorded purchases, and transport receipts with the transporter&#039;s statement supported removal of consignments from the factory. On that evidentiary basis, confiscation of the seized goods, confirmation of duty demand, and penalty were upheld in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>