<?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 (7) TMI 402 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345290</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal in a case involving alleged clandestine removal of goods by a manufacturing company. The Commissioner dropped charges after finding insufficient evidence and lack of cross examination of witnesses. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of weighment details for the goods, rendering the allegations unsustainable. The respondent&#039;s admission of duty liability was not considered conclusive without proper evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of physical verification evidence and cross examination of witnesses in such cases, ultimately upholding the impugned order due to the lack of concrete evidence and witness examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 402 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345290</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal in a case involving alleged clandestine removal of goods by a manufacturing company. The Commissioner dropped charges after finding insufficient evidence and lack of cross examination of witnesses. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of weighment details for the goods, rendering the allegations unsustainable. The respondent&#039;s admission of duty liability was not considered conclusive without proper evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of physical verification evidence and cross examination of witnesses in such cases, ultimately upholding the impugned order due to the lack of concrete evidence and witness examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>