<?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 (9) TMI 55 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236622</link>
    <description>Unaccounted finished chewing tobacco found in excess of the production register balance is liable to confiscation where non-accountal remains unrebutted. Clandestine removal may be established in departmental excise proceedings through seized private records, including bill books, rent receipt registers and loose sheets, corroborated by unretracted statements linking those records to duty-unpaid sales. Applying the preponderance of probability standard rather than criminal-proof requirements, the evidence supported the duty demand for clandestine removals, with consequential interest and penalty. The appeal therefore failed, sustaining confiscation and the excise-duty consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:30:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 55 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236622</link>
      <description>Unaccounted finished chewing tobacco found in excess of the production register balance is liable to confiscation where non-accountal remains unrebutted. Clandestine removal may be established in departmental excise proceedings through seized private records, including bill books, rent receipt registers and loose sheets, corroborated by unretracted statements linking those records to duty-unpaid sales. Applying the preponderance of probability standard rather than criminal-proof requirements, the evidence supported the duty demand for clandestine removals, with consequential interest and penalty. The appeal therefore failed, sustaining confiscation and the excise-duty consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>