<?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 (10) TMI 2142 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266868</link>
    <description>Quantified clandestine removal demands require reliable, corroborative evidence linking raw material procurement, production and clearance; assumptions, unverified turnover figures and unexplained bank deposits are insufficient. The demand based on the marketing firms&#039; turnover, alleged diversion of inputs and bank deposits was set aside for want of credible correlation, while demands supported by recovered private records, date-wise production notes and admissions were sustained because they specifically identified unrecorded removals. Confiscation of duty-free goods, excess raw materials and unrecorded finished goods was justified, but penalties and fine were retained or reduced only to the extent supported by evidence, and were set aside where no concrete nexus with the clandestine activity was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:48:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2142 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266868</link>
      <description>Quantified clandestine removal demands require reliable, corroborative evidence linking raw material procurement, production and clearance; assumptions, unverified turnover figures and unexplained bank deposits are insufficient. The demand based on the marketing firms&#039; turnover, alleged diversion of inputs and bank deposits was set aside for want of credible correlation, while demands supported by recovered private records, date-wise production notes and admissions were sustained because they specifically identified unrecorded removals. Confiscation of duty-free goods, excess raw materials and unrecorded finished goods was justified, but penalties and fine were retained or reduced only to the extent supported by evidence, and were set aside where no concrete nexus with the clandestine activity was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>