<?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>2018 (1) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354030</link>
    <description>Corroborated search evidence, including machinery, packing material, raw material mix and packed gutka, together with consistent statements linking transfer of mix, installation of machines and direction of activity, established deliberate involvement in clandestine manufacture and clearance, so penalties under Rule 26 were sustained. On the cross-examination objection, the Tribunal found no procedural infirmity under Section 9D because the relied-upon witnesses were under the appellants&#039; control and cross-examination was unlikely to add value. The appeals therefore failed on both merits and procedure, and the penalties were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:00:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354030</link>
      <description>Corroborated search evidence, including machinery, packing material, raw material mix and packed gutka, together with consistent statements linking transfer of mix, installation of machines and direction of activity, established deliberate involvement in clandestine manufacture and clearance, so penalties under Rule 26 were sustained. On the cross-examination objection, the Tribunal found no procedural infirmity under Section 9D because the relied-upon witnesses were under the appellants&#039; control and cross-examination was unlikely to add value. The appeals therefore failed on both merits and procedure, and the penalties were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>