<?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 834 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247907</link>
    <description>Clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on disputed stock shortages and an uncorroborated proprietor&#039;s statement alone. Where the assessee maintained only a consolidated stock register, no proper variety-wise inventory was prepared, and no independent evidence corroborated the alleged shortages, the allegation of clandestine clearances failed. The assessee&#039;s explanation that most production was exported and local sales were to industrial consumers remained unrebutted. On that factual basis, the demand and penalty set aside by the first appellate authority were upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 834 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247907</link>
      <description>Clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on disputed stock shortages and an uncorroborated proprietor&#039;s statement alone. Where the assessee maintained only a consolidated stock register, no proper variety-wise inventory was prepared, and no independent evidence corroborated the alleged shortages, the allegation of clandestine clearances failed. The assessee&#039;s explanation that most production was exported and local sales were to industrial consumers remained unrebutted. On that factual basis, the demand and penalty set aside by the first appellate authority were upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>