<?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>2007 (10) TMI 91 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3117</link>
    <description>Alleged stock shortages generated from reconciliation of computer records and physical inventory did not by themselves establish clandestine removal where they were explained by accounting variations, delayed postings, goods in transit, direct sales postings, and compensating entries, and no independent evidence of removal was produced. Alleged punching errors and process loss required fresh verification, so the duty demand on those components was remanded rather than finally sustained. Adding overheads to the value of short inputs was not justified where the liability was only to reverse credit on receipt of the inputs. Penalties on the company and officers were set aside, with limited liberty to reconsider penalty after final determination of any surviving duty on the remanded issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 91 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3117</link>
      <description>Alleged stock shortages generated from reconciliation of computer records and physical inventory did not by themselves establish clandestine removal where they were explained by accounting variations, delayed postings, goods in transit, direct sales postings, and compensating entries, and no independent evidence of removal was produced. Alleged punching errors and process loss required fresh verification, so the duty demand on those components was remanded rather than finally sustained. Adding overheads to the value of short inputs was not justified where the liability was only to reverse credit on receipt of the inputs. Penalties on the company and officers were set aside, with limited liberty to reconsider penalty after final determination of any surviving duty on the remanded issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>