<?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>2005 (7) TMI 13 - CESTAT, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous admissions, seized production records and corroborative documents were treated as sufficient to sustain duty demands on shortages of finished goods and inputs, and on clandestine clearance of rigid PVC pipes. The explanation of inter-se adjustment between units was rejected because the comparative charts did not cover all varieties, and retraction did not displace the evidentiary value of the statements. Confiscation of inputs, finished goods, and land, plant, building and machinery was set aside because mere non-accountal, without material showing intent to evade duty, was insufficient. Penalties were maintained in principle but reduced on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 13 - CESTAT, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous admissions, seized production records and corroborative documents were treated as sufficient to sustain duty demands on shortages of finished goods and inputs, and on clandestine clearance of rigid PVC pipes. The explanation of inter-se adjustment between units was rejected because the comparative charts did not cover all varieties, and retraction did not displace the evidentiary value of the statements. Confiscation of inputs, finished goods, and land, plant, building and machinery was set aside because mere non-accountal, without material showing intent to evade duty, was insufficient. Penalties were maintained in principle but reduced on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>