<?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 1099 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332838</link>
    <description>Private records and surrounding circumstances were held insufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and removal where they were not reliably corroborated by statutory records, buyer or transporter verification, stock discrepancies, seizure evidence, or any technical rebuttal of the pleaded capacity constraint; the duty demand was therefore set aside. Modvat credit denial was remanded for de novo adjudication because relied-upon witness statements were used without granting cross-examination, undermining procedural fairness. Penalties on the directors were also set aside because the order contained no supporting findings linking them to proved misconduct or liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1099 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332838</link>
      <description>Private records and surrounding circumstances were held insufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and removal where they were not reliably corroborated by statutory records, buyer or transporter verification, stock discrepancies, seizure evidence, or any technical rebuttal of the pleaded capacity constraint; the duty demand was therefore set aside. Modvat credit denial was remanded for de novo adjudication because relied-upon witness statements were used without granting cross-examination, undermining procedural fairness. Penalties on the directors were also set aside because the order contained no supporting findings linking them to proved misconduct or liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>