<?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>1980 (1) TMI 196 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165657</link>
    <description>Denial of inspection of relied-upon documents and refusal of cross-examination, combined with a vague show-cause notice, undermined the demand. The record was also found insufficient to conclusively prove substitution of tobacco, and the weight variation between stock-taking and release was consistent with the explanation of moisture absorption due to heavy rain. On that material, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and the adverse order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:49:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 196 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165657</link>
      <description>Denial of inspection of relied-upon documents and refusal of cross-examination, combined with a vague show-cause notice, undermined the demand. The record was also found insufficient to conclusively prove substitution of tobacco, and the weight variation between stock-taking and release was consistent with the explanation of moisture absorption due to heavy rain. On that material, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and the adverse order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>