<?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 (8) TMI 88 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364616</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed duty demand, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs. 50,86,570 against a manufacturing unit and its directors for alleged clandestine removal of goods between units. The decision was based on the interconnected nature of the allegations against both units and the previous overturning of charges against the Kanpur unit. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistent evidentiary support and interconnectedness of charges in duty demand cases involving multiple units within the same organization.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:49:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 88 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364616</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed duty demand, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs. 50,86,570 against a manufacturing unit and its directors for alleged clandestine removal of goods between units. The decision was based on the interconnected nature of the allegations against both units and the previous overturning of charges against the Kanpur unit. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistent evidentiary support and interconnectedness of charges in duty demand cases involving multiple units within the same organization.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>