<?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 (6) TMI 464 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328755</link>
    <description>Clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods was upheld where seized undeclared goods, testing and quality control records, and the production manager&#039;s acceptance of production charts corroborated actual production of laminated plywood. The goods and production records were not reflected in the statutory registers, and the plea that block-board manufacture had stopped earlier was found unsupported by the declarations and records. As the lower authorities had reached concurrent factual findings on undeclared manufacture and removal, no demonstrable error in appreciation of evidence was shown and the appeals were dismissed in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:16:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 464 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328755</link>
      <description>Clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods was upheld where seized undeclared goods, testing and quality control records, and the production manager&#039;s acceptance of production charts corroborated actual production of laminated plywood. The goods and production records were not reflected in the statutory registers, and the plea that block-board manufacture had stopped earlier was found unsupported by the declarations and records. As the lower authorities had reached concurrent factual findings on undeclared manufacture and removal, no demonstrable error in appreciation of evidence was shown and the appeals were dismissed in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>