<?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 (7) TMI 1195 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363887</link>
    <description>The appellant, a manufacturer of Rolled Products of Iron and Steel, was involved in a case regarding liability for a less than 10% stock variation and duty chargeability for photocopies of invoices. The Tribunal found that the stock verification errors due to estimation justified no adverse inference for the minor variation. As for the photocopies of invoices, the lack of evidence linking the appellant to them led to the dismissal of allegations of clandestine clearance, and the appellant was granted the Small Scale Industry (SSI) Exemption. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant received consequential benefits due to insufficient proof supporting the Revenue&#039;s claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:43:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1195 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363887</link>
      <description>The appellant, a manufacturer of Rolled Products of Iron and Steel, was involved in a case regarding liability for a less than 10% stock variation and duty chargeability for photocopies of invoices. The Tribunal found that the stock verification errors due to estimation justified no adverse inference for the minor variation. As for the photocopies of invoices, the lack of evidence linking the appellant to them led to the dismissal of allegations of clandestine clearance, and the appellant was granted the Small Scale Industry (SSI) Exemption. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant received consequential benefits due to insufficient proof supporting the Revenue&#039;s claims.</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=363887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>