<?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 (10) TMI 1530 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369564</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal filed by a broker/commission agent in the iron and steel industry, overturning the demand for Central Excise duty amounting to &amp;amp;8377; 76,52,542/- along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal found that the Department&#039;s case lacked sufficient corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged clandestine removal of MS ingots, emphasizing that third-party records alone are insufficient to establish evasion. While confirming the dropping of a portion of the initial demand, the Tribunal set aside the duty evasion demand due to the lack of concrete evidence, highlighting the necessity of substantial proof in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:06:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1530 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369564</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal filed by a broker/commission agent in the iron and steel industry, overturning the demand for Central Excise duty amounting to &amp;amp;8377; 76,52,542/- along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal found that the Department&#039;s case lacked sufficient corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged clandestine removal of MS ingots, emphasizing that third-party records alone are insufficient to establish evasion. While confirming the dropping of a portion of the initial demand, the Tribunal set aside the duty evasion demand due to the lack of concrete evidence, highlighting the necessity of substantial proof in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>