<?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 (9) TMI 72 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1366</link>
    <description>A charge of clandestine removal cannot rest solely on a transporter&#039;s private records or an uncorroborated statement; without independent corroboration and identifiable linkage to the assessee, the bulk duty demand was rejected. The duty demand based on factory shortages was sustained, while the additional demand on goods seized from merchant manufacturers and the transporter was set aside as duplicative and unsupported. Penalties and confiscation were correspondingly scaled back: the assessee&#039;s penalty was reduced, penalties based only on the rejected demand were cancelled, and confiscation of excess goods in the assessee&#039;s premises was set aside, though confiscation and related penalties for goods at merchant manufacturers&#039; premises were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 72 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1366</link>
      <description>A charge of clandestine removal cannot rest solely on a transporter&#039;s private records or an uncorroborated statement; without independent corroboration and identifiable linkage to the assessee, the bulk duty demand was rejected. The duty demand based on factory shortages was sustained, while the additional demand on goods seized from merchant manufacturers and the transporter was set aside as duplicative and unsupported. Penalties and confiscation were correspondingly scaled back: the assessee&#039;s penalty was reduced, penalties based only on the rejected demand were cancelled, and confiscation of excess goods in the assessee&#039;s premises was set aside, though confiscation and related penalties for goods at merchant manufacturers&#039; premises were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>