<?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>Court Dismisses Duty Demand: No Evidence of Unauthorized Removal Based on Sales Discrepancies in ER-I Returns.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43391</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal - there is no evidence on record except the difference in figures of sale as per ER-I Returns and balance sheet. There is neither any cogent nor any credible evidence on record to prove any surreptitious removal of the finished products - Demand of duty is not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 06:44:52 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 06:44:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=547632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Dismisses Duty Demand: No Evidence of Unauthorized Removal Based on Sales Discrepancies in ER-I Returns.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43391</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal - there is no evidence on record except the difference in figures of sale as per ER-I Returns and balance sheet. There is neither any cogent nor any credible evidence on record to prove any surreptitious removal of the finished products - Demand of duty is not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 06:44:52 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>