<?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>2012 (9) TMI 872 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246603</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to drop duty demand and sanction the refund claim. The case centered on shortages in a BOPP film factory, with the respondent attributing them to processing loss. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondent&#039;s explanation, supported by technical evidence, and found the shortages to be process loss, not clandestine removal. The decision was based on the minimal percentage of processing loss and consistent reporting to tax authorities. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the lack of evidence for clandestine removal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:34:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 872 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246603</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to drop duty demand and sanction the refund claim. The case centered on shortages in a BOPP film factory, with the respondent attributing them to processing loss. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondent&#039;s explanation, supported by technical evidence, and found the shortages to be process loss, not clandestine removal. The decision was based on the minimal percentage of processing loss and consistent reporting to tax authorities. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the lack of evidence for clandestine removal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>