<?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 (10) TMI 394 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349239</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and redemption fine for M/s. Trishul Arecanut Granules Pvt. Ltd. (TAG) but set aside the demand of duty. Penalties on M/s. Wahab Stores and M/s. Embee Agencies were upheld. The demand of duty for TAG was reduced to Rs. 46,77,703/- based on private records. The Tribunal remanded the issue of excise duty based on production capacity during a specific period due to the absence of relevant legislation. It found that the demand amount in the Show Cause Notice exceeded the reasons provided and could not be sustained. The Tribunal also noted issues with evidence admissibility and cross-examination, upholding the extended period of limitation based on evidence of clandestine activities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 394 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349239</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and redemption fine for M/s. Trishul Arecanut Granules Pvt. Ltd. (TAG) but set aside the demand of duty. Penalties on M/s. Wahab Stores and M/s. Embee Agencies were upheld. The demand of duty for TAG was reduced to Rs. 46,77,703/- based on private records. The Tribunal remanded the issue of excise duty based on production capacity during a specific period due to the absence of relevant legislation. It found that the demand amount in the Show Cause Notice exceeded the reasons provided and could not be sustained. The Tribunal also noted issues with evidence admissibility and cross-examination, upholding the extended period of limitation based on evidence of clandestine activities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>