<?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 889 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211619</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous production cards, missing statutory entries, absent quality-control records and recorded statements were sufficient to establish clandestine removal, and a later retraction did not erase that evidentiary value. A mere common director was insufficient to prove related-person status for valuation because mutuality of interest or legally significant common control was not shown. Small-scale exemption was unavailable because prior clearances exceeded the threshold, and the clandestine clearances pushed turnover further beyond the limit. The duty demand was sustained on the clandestine removal and exemption issues, while the related-person valuation finding was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 889 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211619</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous production cards, missing statutory entries, absent quality-control records and recorded statements were sufficient to establish clandestine removal, and a later retraction did not erase that evidentiary value. A mere common director was insufficient to prove related-person status for valuation because mutuality of interest or legally significant common control was not shown. Small-scale exemption was unavailable because prior clearances exceeded the threshold, and the clandestine clearances pushed turnover further beyond the limit. The duty demand was sustained on the clandestine removal and exemption issues, while the related-person valuation finding was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>