<?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 (4) TMI 426 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341456</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous records, including production notebooks, yarn realisation statements, cone winding records and job-work documents, established suppression of actual production and clandestine clearance of cotton yarn through fictitious buyers and cash receipts. The corroborated statements of the persons concerned were treated as inculpatory and unretracted, and the absence of genuine reeling capacity with the claimed job workers supported the alleged modus operandi. On the totality of evidence and on a preponderance of probability, clandestine removal was proved, so the central excise duty demand, interest and equal penalty were upheld. Penalties on the director, broker and job worker under Rule 26 were also sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:21:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 426 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341456</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous records, including production notebooks, yarn realisation statements, cone winding records and job-work documents, established suppression of actual production and clandestine clearance of cotton yarn through fictitious buyers and cash receipts. The corroborated statements of the persons concerned were treated as inculpatory and unretracted, and the absence of genuine reeling capacity with the claimed job workers supported the alleged modus operandi. On the totality of evidence and on a preponderance of probability, clandestine removal was proved, so the central excise duty demand, interest and equal penalty were upheld. Penalties on the director, broker and job worker under Rule 26 were also sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>