<?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 (8) TMI 14 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345956</link>
    <description>Demand of duty and penalty based only on computer printouts and an alleged stock discrepancy was held unsustainable where no physical stock verification was done and no independent evidence corroborated clandestine removal. The Tribunal noted that the shortage was derived from a comparison between software-based stock records, but the Revenue failed to show that those records were complete and reliable accounts of manufacture and clearance. In the absence of corroborative material, reliance on the printouts was insufficient to establish removal of finished goods without payment of duty, and the demand, interest and penalty were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 14 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345956</link>
      <description>Demand of duty and penalty based only on computer printouts and an alleged stock discrepancy was held unsustainable where no physical stock verification was done and no independent evidence corroborated clandestine removal. The Tribunal noted that the shortage was derived from a comparison between software-based stock records, but the Revenue failed to show that those records were complete and reliable accounts of manufacture and clearance. In the absence of corroborative material, reliance on the printouts was insufficient to establish removal of finished goods without payment of duty, and the demand, interest and penalty were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>