<?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 (3) TMI 195 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325011</link>
    <description>The tribunal partially allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against discrepancies in stock, confirming duty on shortages but overturning penalty imposition under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal criticized investigation lapses and lack of evidence regarding alleged clandestine clearance against a dummy challan, concluding penalties were unsustainable. Shortages in finished goods and raw materials were noted, but not deemed conclusive of clandestine clearance. The appeal resulted in confirming duty on shortages but rejecting penalties, emphasizing the inadequacy of evidence for penalty imposition based solely on the alleged dummy challan.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2016 11:01:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 195 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325011</link>
      <description>The tribunal partially allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against discrepancies in stock, confirming duty on shortages but overturning penalty imposition under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal criticized investigation lapses and lack of evidence regarding alleged clandestine clearance against a dummy challan, concluding penalties were unsustainable. Shortages in finished goods and raw materials were noted, but not deemed conclusive of clandestine clearance. The appeal resulted in confirming duty on shortages but rejecting penalties, emphasizing the inadequacy of evidence for penalty imposition based solely on the alleged dummy challan.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>