<?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 (7) TMI 151 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329553</link>
    <description>Cumulative private records, confessional statements and shortages in raw materials were treated as sufficient corroboration of clandestine manufacture and removal of cotton yarn, and the Tribunal held that retractions and the absence of cross-examination did not, on these facts, undermine the demand; the duty demand, confiscation and penalty on the company were therefore upheld. For a commission agent, Rule 209A required specific material showing knowing dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation, and the absence of clear allegations or findings of knowledge meant the rule was not attracted; the penalty on the agent was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:07:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 151 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329553</link>
      <description>Cumulative private records, confessional statements and shortages in raw materials were treated as sufficient corroboration of clandestine manufacture and removal of cotton yarn, and the Tribunal held that retractions and the absence of cross-examination did not, on these facts, undermine the demand; the duty demand, confiscation and penalty on the company were therefore upheld. For a commission agent, Rule 209A required specific material showing knowing dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation, and the absence of clear allegations or findings of knowledge meant the rule was not attracted; the penalty on the agent was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>