<?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 (3) TMI 620 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356917</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal demands cannot be sustained on a Sales Manager Report alone; corroborative evidence such as unaccounted raw material consumption, excess power use, or unexplained sale proceeds is required, and the demand here was set aside. SSI exemption is goods-specific, so clearance of Bisleri Club Soda could not be denied merely because the brand owner did not itself manufacture the goods, and that denial was set aside. SSI exemption for Citra clearances also could not be refused solely on an alleged brand-owner turnover breach where departmental certificates existed and there was no proof of collusion, knowledge, or connivance; that demand was likewise set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:55:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512711" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 620 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356917</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal demands cannot be sustained on a Sales Manager Report alone; corroborative evidence such as unaccounted raw material consumption, excess power use, or unexplained sale proceeds is required, and the demand here was set aside. SSI exemption is goods-specific, so clearance of Bisleri Club Soda could not be denied merely because the brand owner did not itself manufacture the goods, and that denial was set aside. SSI exemption for Citra clearances also could not be refused solely on an alleged brand-owner turnover breach where departmental certificates existed and there was no proof of collusion, knowledge, or connivance; that demand was likewise set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>