<?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>2017 (1) TMI 652 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337572</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal allegations require cogent, corroborated evidence of actual manufacture, clearance and supporting circumstances. Incentive sheets recovered from residential premises were held to reflect only gross production for incentive purposes and not necessarily finished manufacture, while photocopies of invoices recovered from a third party, without investigation at consignees or transporters and without corroborating material such as raw material procurement or electricity use, were insufficient to prove parallel clearances. A selective reading of a fax was also found inadequate to establish PETN diversion, and the denial of effective cross-examination undermined reliance on adverse statements. On this basis, the duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 652 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337572</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal allegations require cogent, corroborated evidence of actual manufacture, clearance and supporting circumstances. Incentive sheets recovered from residential premises were held to reflect only gross production for incentive purposes and not necessarily finished manufacture, while photocopies of invoices recovered from a third party, without investigation at consignees or transporters and without corroborating material such as raw material procurement or electricity use, were insufficient to prove parallel clearances. A selective reading of a fax was also found inadequate to establish PETN diversion, and the denial of effective cross-examination undermined reliance on adverse statements. On this basis, the duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>