<?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 595 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340092</link>
    <description>Physical stock discrepancies by themselves did not establish clandestine removal where no direct evidence showed goods cleared without duty and an accounting error remained plausible; the duty demand on shortage was therefore not sustained, and the redemption fine was reduced as excessive against the excess stock value. Freight collected through separate commercial billing on a principal-to-principal, factory-gate sale remained deductible from assessable value even though it was not shown in the excise invoice, so the freight demand was not sustainable. Where the record indicated inadvertence rather than intent to evade duty, the penal provisions were not attracted, and the company and individual penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:15:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 595 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340092</link>
      <description>Physical stock discrepancies by themselves did not establish clandestine removal where no direct evidence showed goods cleared without duty and an accounting error remained plausible; the duty demand on shortage was therefore not sustained, and the redemption fine was reduced as excessive against the excess stock value. Freight collected through separate commercial billing on a principal-to-principal, factory-gate sale remained deductible from assessable value even though it was not shown in the excise invoice, so the freight demand was not sustainable. Where the record indicated inadvertence rather than intent to evade duty, the penal provisions were not attracted, and the company and individual penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>