<?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 (8) TMI 389 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262472</link>
    <description>A pre-deposit waiver was justified where the duty attributable to stock shortage and seized documents had already been paid, and the balance demand rested only on an assumed production and power-consumption norm. The estimation method was treated as unsound because it assumed the clandestinely cleared quantity was manufactured in the same months, without any actual consumption experiment, corroborative evidence of unaccounted raw material purchase, or independent proof of clandestine removal for the remaining demand. The paid amount was therefore treated as sufficient for hearing the appeals, and recovery of the disputed balance was stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:43:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 389 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262472</link>
      <description>A pre-deposit waiver was justified where the duty attributable to stock shortage and seized documents had already been paid, and the balance demand rested only on an assumed production and power-consumption norm. The estimation method was treated as unsound because it assumed the clandestinely cleared quantity was manufactured in the same months, without any actual consumption experiment, corroborative evidence of unaccounted raw material purchase, or independent proof of clandestine removal for the remaining demand. The paid amount was therefore treated as sufficient for hearing the appeals, and recovery of the disputed balance was stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>