<?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 1224 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354488</link>
    <description>When duty-paid and duty-free inputs were stored in a common pool, alleged diversion of duty-free soda ash could not be quantified merely from a stock statement. The tribunal held that the demand had to be worked out by a net source-wise determination covering all receipts and removals, with an opportunity to produce supporting records, and remanded the matter for fresh quantification of any duty-free quantity actually removed. It also held that penalties on the assessee and its General Manager were unsustainable because the clearances were reflected in invoices, clandestine removal was not shown, export obligation under the advance authorisation scheme had been met, and mens rea for penal action was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:08:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1224 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354488</link>
      <description>When duty-paid and duty-free inputs were stored in a common pool, alleged diversion of duty-free soda ash could not be quantified merely from a stock statement. The tribunal held that the demand had to be worked out by a net source-wise determination covering all receipts and removals, with an opportunity to produce supporting records, and remanded the matter for fresh quantification of any duty-free quantity actually removed. It also held that penalties on the assessee and its General Manager were unsustainable because the clearances were reflected in invoices, clandestine removal was not shown, export obligation under the advance authorisation scheme had been met, and mens rea for penal action was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>