<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1061 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271269</link>
    <description>Clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods cannot be sustained on weighbridge slips, private worksheets and statements alone when they are not statutory records and are unsupported by transport documents, buyer evidence, proof of raw material receipt, proof of clearance, or other corroboration. The Revenue must establish a tangible link between manufacture, removal, transport and sale through affirmative evidence, and mere probability is insufficient. Higher electricity consumption by itself is only an ancillary circumstance and cannot confirm duty liability without corroborative proof of actual production and removal. The major duty demands were therefore not sustainable, and the Revenue appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1061 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271269</link>
      <description>Clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods cannot be sustained on weighbridge slips, private worksheets and statements alone when they are not statutory records and are unsupported by transport documents, buyer evidence, proof of raw material receipt, proof of clearance, or other corroboration. The Revenue must establish a tangible link between manufacture, removal, transport and sale through affirmative evidence, and mere probability is insufficient. Higher electricity consumption by itself is only an ancillary circumstance and cannot confirm duty liability without corroborative proof of actual production and removal. The major duty demands were therefore not sustainable, and the Revenue appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>