<?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>2020 (1) TMI 533 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390920</link>
    <description>Revenue failed to prove clandestine manufacture and removal of pan masala containing tobacco where the sample reports showed tobacco but did not establish the required presence of betel nuts for classification. The record also lacked evidence of procurement or use of betel nuts or of purchase and consumption of the main raw materials, and the machines were not shown to be operating or connected for use. Retraction of statements, absence of lawful testing of those statements, and uncorroborated third-party material collected behind the assessee&#039;s back left the demand unsupported. In the absence of proof of manufacture of notified goods, the packing-machines declaration requirement was inapplicable, and the duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:14:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 533 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390920</link>
      <description>Revenue failed to prove clandestine manufacture and removal of pan masala containing tobacco where the sample reports showed tobacco but did not establish the required presence of betel nuts for classification. The record also lacked evidence of procurement or use of betel nuts or of purchase and consumption of the main raw materials, and the machines were not shown to be operating or connected for use. Retraction of statements, absence of lawful testing of those statements, and uncorroborated third-party material collected behind the assessee&#039;s back left the demand unsupported. In the absence of proof of manufacture of notified goods, the packing-machines declaration requirement was inapplicable, and the duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>