<?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>2013 (1) TMI 355 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220249</link>
    <description>Abatement under the compounded levy scheme was treated as available where the unit&#039;s closure was otherwise established. The factory had stopped production, officers repeatedly found it closed, and the rolling mill was operating on a diesel generator set, so the absence of an electricity meter reading was considered immaterial. Although the assessee did not intimate the closing stock position, the department produced no material showing stock verification during its visits or the presence of excisable goods after closure. The procedural lapse was therefore not enough to displace the factual finding of closure, and an adverse inference was drawn against the department for not producing relevant verification material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 355 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220249</link>
      <description>Abatement under the compounded levy scheme was treated as available where the unit&#039;s closure was otherwise established. The factory had stopped production, officers repeatedly found it closed, and the rolling mill was operating on a diesel generator set, so the absence of an electricity meter reading was considered immaterial. Although the assessee did not intimate the closing stock position, the department produced no material showing stock verification during its visits or the presence of excisable goods after closure. The procedural lapse was therefore not enough to displace the factual finding of closure, and an adverse inference was drawn against the department for not producing relevant verification material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>