<?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 951 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352682</link>
    <description>Repeated opportunities after remand did not amount to denial of natural justice where the appellants failed to file a reply or attend hearing. The demand of duty and denial of credit were sustained because seized records, parallel invoices, weighment slips, truck registers, octroi documents, bank-related material and un-retracted statements formed a consistent chain proving clandestine removal, unlawful credit utilisation and suppression of production. Personal penalties on the Managing Director, Finance Manager and Accounts Officer were justified on the basis of active participation and conscious abetment. In remand, however, enhanced penalties could not be imposed without fresh justification, so the higher penalties on two officers were reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:41:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 951 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352682</link>
      <description>Repeated opportunities after remand did not amount to denial of natural justice where the appellants failed to file a reply or attend hearing. The demand of duty and denial of credit were sustained because seized records, parallel invoices, weighment slips, truck registers, octroi documents, bank-related material and un-retracted statements formed a consistent chain proving clandestine removal, unlawful credit utilisation and suppression of production. Personal penalties on the Managing Director, Finance Manager and Accounts Officer were justified on the basis of active participation and conscious abetment. In remand, however, enhanced penalties could not be imposed without fresh justification, so the higher penalties on two officers were reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>