<?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 440 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208678</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in the case involving alleged clandestine removal of goods by M/s Citizen Metalloys Ltd. The director&#039;s admission was contested, arguing that chits were for internal record-keeping. Lack of verification of customer addresses and authorship of chits raised doubts. Both parties relied on past case law, with the Tribunal favoring the appellants due to insufficient evidence and lack of thorough investigation by the Revenue. Penalties imposed were overturned due to insufficient evidence and failure to verify customer addresses, aligning with the principles established in previous judgments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 440 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208678</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in the case involving alleged clandestine removal of goods by M/s Citizen Metalloys Ltd. The director&#039;s admission was contested, arguing that chits were for internal record-keeping. Lack of verification of customer addresses and authorship of chits raised doubts. Both parties relied on past case law, with the Tribunal favoring the appellants due to insufficient evidence and lack of thorough investigation by the Revenue. Penalties imposed were overturned due to insufficient evidence and failure to verify customer addresses, aligning with the principles established in previous judgments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>