<?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 1328 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357625</link>
    <description>Denial of unrelied documents and cross-examination was treated as no breach of natural justice because the relied upon papers had already been supplied again and the request for cross-examination was unsupported and not pressed at the personal hearing. Cl ae clandestine manufacture and removal of aluminium wire was upheld on the basis of multiple machines, employees, seized incriminating documents, ledger entries recovered from a residence, customer confirmations, and kacchi parchies showing unaccounted raw material and clearance of finished goods. The evidence was considered sufficiently corroborative to sustain the demand, penalty, and extended period, and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:20:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1328 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357625</link>
      <description>Denial of unrelied documents and cross-examination was treated as no breach of natural justice because the relied upon papers had already been supplied again and the request for cross-examination was unsupported and not pressed at the personal hearing. Cl ae clandestine manufacture and removal of aluminium wire was upheld on the basis of multiple machines, employees, seized incriminating documents, ledger entries recovered from a residence, customer confirmations, and kacchi parchies showing unaccounted raw material and clearance of finished goods. The evidence was considered sufficiently corroborative to sustain the demand, penalty, and extended period, and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>