<?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 866 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211515</link>
    <description>Estimated input-output discrepancies, without evidence of unaccounted raw material purchases or actual clandestine removal, were held insufficient to justify complete denial of interim stay on a duty demand. The company was found to have a prima facie case on that issue, but the cenvat credit demand was not fit for total waiver because the assessee had admitted wrongful availment of substantial credit and questions of reversal and re-credit, as well as interest liability, required final examination. Pre-deposit of the personal penalty on the Divisional Manager was waived because the record then did not show prima facie knowledge that excisable goods were liable for confiscation. Partial pre-deposit was directed only for the company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 866 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211515</link>
      <description>Estimated input-output discrepancies, without evidence of unaccounted raw material purchases or actual clandestine removal, were held insufficient to justify complete denial of interim stay on a duty demand. The company was found to have a prima facie case on that issue, but the cenvat credit demand was not fit for total waiver because the assessee had admitted wrongful availment of substantial credit and questions of reversal and re-credit, as well as interest liability, required final examination. Pre-deposit of the personal penalty on the Divisional Manager was waived because the record then did not show prima facie knowledge that excisable goods were liable for confiscation. Partial pre-deposit was directed only for the company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>