<?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>2014 (2) TMI 695 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244101</link>
    <description>Cumulative circumstantial evidence, including shortages of raw materials, private records, buyer admissions and corroborating statements, was treated as sufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and removal on a preponderance of evidence. On that basis, the majority upheld the Revenue&#039;s case, reversed the appellate relief and restored the original duty demand and consequential penalty. The note also records a dissent that would have limited proof to the established unaccounted clearances to one buyer, holding that the remaining demand rested only on presumption and was not independently proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 May 2015 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 695 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244101</link>
      <description>Cumulative circumstantial evidence, including shortages of raw materials, private records, buyer admissions and corroborating statements, was treated as sufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and removal on a preponderance of evidence. On that basis, the majority upheld the Revenue&#039;s case, reversed the appellate relief and restored the original duty demand and consequential penalty. The note also records a dissent that would have limited proof to the established unaccounted clearances to one buyer, holding that the remaining demand rested only on presumption and was not independently proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>