<?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>2015 (4) TMI 689 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258808</link>
    <description>Recovered loose sheets, contemporaneous statements and statutory records were examined in a clandestine removal dispute. The majority held that the loose-sheet entries substantially tallied with the assessee&#039;s statutory records, the minor monthly differences were explained by loss and wastage, and the Revenue failed to produce corroborative evidence of buyers, transport or extra raw material. On that basis, the later retraction was treated as an afterthought and the oral confession alone was held insufficient to sustain duty and penalty. The dissent considered the admissions, recovered sheets, voluntary payment and surrounding circumstances adequate to prove clandestine removal on a preponderance of probability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 689 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258808</link>
      <description>Recovered loose sheets, contemporaneous statements and statutory records were examined in a clandestine removal dispute. The majority held that the loose-sheet entries substantially tallied with the assessee&#039;s statutory records, the minor monthly differences were explained by loss and wastage, and the Revenue failed to produce corroborative evidence of buyers, transport or extra raw material. On that basis, the later retraction was treated as an afterthought and the oral confession alone was held insufficient to sustain duty and penalty. The dissent considered the admissions, recovered sheets, voluntary payment and surrounding circumstances adequate to prove clandestine removal on a preponderance of probability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>