<?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>2006 (8) TMI 79 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1172</link>
    <description>A charge of clandestine receipt of inputs, clandestine production and clandestine clearance of Potassium Chlorate must rest on positive, cogent and corroborative evidence; loose chits, inconsistent figures and unverified inferences were held insufficient where there was no proof of actual removal, buyers, transport, sale proceeds, or unaccounted use of inputs and power. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties were not sustainable. The extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) was also unavailable because the unit was under physical control and there was no reliable proof of suppression, making the demand time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 79 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1172</link>
      <description>A charge of clandestine receipt of inputs, clandestine production and clandestine clearance of Potassium Chlorate must rest on positive, cogent and corroborative evidence; loose chits, inconsistent figures and unverified inferences were held insufficient where there was no proof of actual removal, buyers, transport, sale proceeds, or unaccounted use of inputs and power. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties were not sustainable. The extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) was also unavailable because the unit was under physical control and there was no reliable proof of suppression, making the demand time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>