<?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 358 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339855</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order demanding duty, interest, and penalty based on income surrendered during an income tax survey for an appellant engaged in manufacturing auto components. The Revenue alleged clandestine removal of goods without duty payment, presuming the surrendered income as profit from the manufacturing business. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence linking the surrendered income to unaccounted manufacturing activities, citing precedents that voluntary disclosure of income requires proof for taxation. The appeal was allowed, highlighting the necessity of cogent evidence to support duty demands under the Central Excise Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 07:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 358 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339855</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order demanding duty, interest, and penalty based on income surrendered during an income tax survey for an appellant engaged in manufacturing auto components. The Revenue alleged clandestine removal of goods without duty payment, presuming the surrendered income as profit from the manufacturing business. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence linking the surrendered income to unaccounted manufacturing activities, citing precedents that voluntary disclosure of income requires proof for taxation. The appeal was allowed, highlighting the necessity of cogent evidence to support duty demands under the Central Excise Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>