<?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 (4) TMI 1305 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198917</link>
    <description>Excise proceedings against a deceased proprietor abate where there is no statutory machinery to continue recovery against legal heirs or the estate, so duty and penalty cannot be enforced against a dead person. For the surviving proprietorship concern, seized private records, statements, computer printouts and dealer material corroborated clearance at invoice values below the actual consideration; invoice value could not be treated as transaction value where price was not the sole consideration. Applying preponderance of probabilities, the demand and penalties were sustained to the extent supported by evidence, and the Revenue could not reopen the portion dropped by the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 06:22:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1305 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198917</link>
      <description>Excise proceedings against a deceased proprietor abate where there is no statutory machinery to continue recovery against legal heirs or the estate, so duty and penalty cannot be enforced against a dead person. For the surviving proprietorship concern, seized private records, statements, computer printouts and dealer material corroborated clearance at invoice values below the actual consideration; invoice value could not be treated as transaction value where price was not the sole consideration. Applying preponderance of probabilities, the demand and penalties were sustained to the extent supported by evidence, and the Revenue could not reopen the portion dropped by the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>