<?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 (5) TMI 245 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247318</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision to drop the demand raised in the show cause notice due to lack of evidence supporting under-valuation claims. The confirmation of the demand of approximately Rs.88 lakhs was set aside as the reasoning provided was deemed unacceptable. Penalties imposed on the main appellant and others were invalidated since the demand was unsustainable. The extended period for demand was not addressed specifically as the appeals were disposed of on merit. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal and allowed the appeals of all other appellants, emphasizing the need for tangible evidence in confirming demands and imposing penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 245 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247318</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision to drop the demand raised in the show cause notice due to lack of evidence supporting under-valuation claims. The confirmation of the demand of approximately Rs.88 lakhs was set aside as the reasoning provided was deemed unacceptable. Penalties imposed on the main appellant and others were invalidated since the demand was unsustainable. The extended period for demand was not addressed specifically as the appeals were disposed of on merit. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal and allowed the appeals of all other appellants, emphasizing the need for tangible evidence in confirming demands and imposing penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>