<?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 280 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236847</link>
    <description>Duty demand based on factory shortages, excess finished goods, seized trader stock and corroborative statements was sustained because the record supported clandestine clearance rather than a mere approximation. The Tribunal relied on shortages in the factory, processed fabrics ready for removal, the folding contractor&#039;s statement and traders&#039; statements linking the goods to the assessee&#039;s processing activity without duty payment. The absence of the assessee&#039;s name on seized fabrics, the claim of pending approval or later duty payment, and the failure to seek cross-examination or show retraction did not displace the evidence. The earlier comparable matter was distinguished on facts because the present evidence was materially stronger.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:45:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 280 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236847</link>
      <description>Duty demand based on factory shortages, excess finished goods, seized trader stock and corroborative statements was sustained because the record supported clandestine clearance rather than a mere approximation. The Tribunal relied on shortages in the factory, processed fabrics ready for removal, the folding contractor&#039;s statement and traders&#039; statements linking the goods to the assessee&#039;s processing activity without duty payment. The absence of the assessee&#039;s name on seized fabrics, the claim of pending approval or later duty payment, and the failure to seek cross-examination or show retraction did not displace the evidence. The earlier comparable matter was distinguished on facts because the present evidence was materially stronger.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>