<?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 (5) TMI 1344 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360780</link>
    <description>Duty, interest and penalties on the allegation that the assessee manufactured stainless steel ingots and cleared them as mild steel ingots, thereby crossing the SSI exemption limit, were held unsustainable because the record showed MS scrap and machinery capable of manufacturing both MS and SS ingots, the buyers&#039; statements did not prove receipt of only SS ingots, and the invoices referred to MS ingots. In the absence of corroborative evidence that only SS ingots were manufactured during the relevant period, the demand was treated as based on assumptions and presumption rather than proof, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 07:40:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1344 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360780</link>
      <description>Duty, interest and penalties on the allegation that the assessee manufactured stainless steel ingots and cleared them as mild steel ingots, thereby crossing the SSI exemption limit, were held unsustainable because the record showed MS scrap and machinery capable of manufacturing both MS and SS ingots, the buyers&#039; statements did not prove receipt of only SS ingots, and the invoices referred to MS ingots. In the absence of corroborative evidence that only SS ingots were manufactured during the relevant period, the demand was treated as based on assumptions and presumption rather than proof, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>