<?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 (12) TMI 228 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351959</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine removal require cogent corroborative evidence showing additional manufacture and clearance beyond statutory records. Where the demand rested only on card summary sheets and other third-party papers, without reconciliation with the assessee&#039;s books or proof of raw material procurement, electricity use, labour deployment, transport, or receipt of sale proceeds, the confirmation of duty and penalties was treated as presumptive. The Tribunal held that such uncorroborated material was insufficient to sustain central excise demand and penalties, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee and co-appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2017 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 228 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351959</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine removal require cogent corroborative evidence showing additional manufacture and clearance beyond statutory records. Where the demand rested only on card summary sheets and other third-party papers, without reconciliation with the assessee&#039;s books or proof of raw material procurement, electricity use, labour deployment, transport, or receipt of sale proceeds, the confirmation of duty and penalties was treated as presumptive. The Tribunal held that such uncorroborated material was insufficient to sustain central excise demand and penalties, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee and co-appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>