<?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 892 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345780</link>
    <description>The case involved an appeal against duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants for alleged clandestine removal of goods sent for processing. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 42,243 along with interest and imposed penalties, considering the appellants&#039; acknowledgment to avoid litigation. Despite inconsistencies in the Revenue&#039;s case and doubts about the evidence presented, penalties were imposed based on admitted liability and lack of concrete evidence supporting all allegations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2017 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 892 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345780</link>
      <description>The case involved an appeal against duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants for alleged clandestine removal of goods sent for processing. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 42,243 along with interest and imposed penalties, considering the appellants&#039; acknowledgment to avoid litigation. Despite inconsistencies in the Revenue&#039;s case and doubts about the evidence presented, penalties were imposed based on admitted liability and lack of concrete evidence supporting all allegations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>