<?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 (9) TMI 1016 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332755</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty confirmation and penalties imposed on M/s Mittal Pigment Pvt. Ltd. and its Director for alleged suppressed production and clandestine clearance of Zinc Oxide. The Revenue&#039;s case lacked concrete evidence, relying heavily on approximations and statements without supporting dispatch particulars or sale proceeds. The Tribunal found the Revenue failed to conclusively prove the allegations, citing the lack of evidence such as dispatch particulars and increased power consumption. However, the confirmation of central excise duty on short found inputs was upheld as the appellants had already deposited it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 12:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1016 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332755</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty confirmation and penalties imposed on M/s Mittal Pigment Pvt. Ltd. and its Director for alleged suppressed production and clandestine clearance of Zinc Oxide. The Revenue&#039;s case lacked concrete evidence, relying heavily on approximations and statements without supporting dispatch particulars or sale proceeds. The Tribunal found the Revenue failed to conclusively prove the allegations, citing the lack of evidence such as dispatch particulars and increased power consumption. However, the confirmation of central excise duty on short found inputs was upheld as the appellants had already deposited it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>