<?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>2002 (2) TMI 1333 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184368</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal demands require reliable corroborative evidence establishing manufacture, procurement of raw materials, production, transport and clearance without duty payment. A seized notebook could not support the demand where its scribe was not examined, despite being present during the raid, and its entries were not independently proved. Failure to examine suppliers, workers, transporters and other relevant witnesses, coupled with the absence of supporting evidence from transport and insurance inquiries, left the alleged removal unsubstantiated. Regulatory controls over explosives and fireworks further required findings beyond presumptions regarding unaccounted manufacture and clearance. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and related penalties, while the penalty for non-maintenance of F-4 Registers remained confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2016 17:24:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1333 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184368</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal demands require reliable corroborative evidence establishing manufacture, procurement of raw materials, production, transport and clearance without duty payment. A seized notebook could not support the demand where its scribe was not examined, despite being present during the raid, and its entries were not independently proved. Failure to examine suppliers, workers, transporters and other relevant witnesses, coupled with the absence of supporting evidence from transport and insurance inquiries, left the alleged removal unsubstantiated. Regulatory controls over explosives and fireworks further required findings beyond presumptions regarding unaccounted manufacture and clearance. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and related penalties, while the penalty for non-maintenance of F-4 Registers remained confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>