<?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 (3) TMI 63 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339560</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The decision emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence to support the retracted statements of the Managing Director, concluding that the charge of clandestine removal was not sustainable solely based on those statements. This ruling aligned with previous cases, highlighting the insufficiency of uncorroborated statements for serious allegations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 63 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339560</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The decision emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence to support the retracted statements of the Managing Director, concluding that the charge of clandestine removal was not sustainable solely based on those statements. This ruling aligned with previous cases, highlighting the insufficiency of uncorroborated statements for serious allegations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>