<?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 (12) TMI 921 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336276</link>
    <description>Stock-shortage demands are sustainable where the record supports the shortage and the violation is otherwise established, even if the assessee disputes the verification method as an eye estimate. The challenge that the duty demand and penalties were not based on exact scientific quantification did not, by itself, defeat the demand when the underlying material substantiated the shortage. The duty appropriation and connected penalties were therefore upheld, and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:53:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 921 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336276</link>
      <description>Stock-shortage demands are sustainable where the record supports the shortage and the violation is otherwise established, even if the assessee disputes the verification method as an eye estimate. The challenge that the duty demand and penalties were not based on exact scientific quantification did not, by itself, defeat the demand when the underlying material substantiated the shortage. The duty appropriation and connected penalties were therefore upheld, and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>