<?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 (6) TMI 867 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362040</link>
    <description>Clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on suspicion alone; the Revenue must prove the allegation with concrete evidence such as raw material procurement, manufacturing activity, excess power or labour consumption, or waste and scrap. Here, purchase invoices, ledger accounts, bank records and transport particulars showed receipt of duty-paid transformers from another supplier and their onward supply to the buyer, with a direct correlation between inward and outward consignments. As the Department failed to establish positive evidence of manufacture, the allegation was not proved and the demand of excise duty with equal penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 867 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362040</link>
      <description>Clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on suspicion alone; the Revenue must prove the allegation with concrete evidence such as raw material procurement, manufacturing activity, excess power or labour consumption, or waste and scrap. Here, purchase invoices, ledger accounts, bank records and transport particulars showed receipt of duty-paid transformers from another supplier and their onward supply to the buyer, with a direct correlation between inward and outward consignments. As the Department failed to establish positive evidence of manufacture, the allegation was not proved and the demand of excise duty with equal penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>