<?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 (2) TMI 362 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271657</link>
    <description>The appeals were filed against the demand of duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellants for clearing Chewing Tobacco as naswar. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty against one appellant, dropped penalties on another, and imposed a penalty on the third. The appellants argued against reliance on previous investigations and statements recorded in police custody. The Revenue claimed the appellants were involved in clandestine activities. The Member (Judicial) found inconsistencies in evidence, unreliable statements, and lack of proof for clandestine clearance. The impugned order was set aside, and appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 May 2016 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 362 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271657</link>
      <description>The appeals were filed against the demand of duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellants for clearing Chewing Tobacco as naswar. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty against one appellant, dropped penalties on another, and imposed a penalty on the third. The appellants argued against reliance on previous investigations and statements recorded in police custody. The Revenue claimed the appellants were involved in clandestine activities. The Member (Judicial) found inconsistencies in evidence, unreliable statements, and lack of proof for clandestine clearance. The impugned order was set aside, and appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>