<?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 (3) TMI 1841 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286191</link>
    <description>Denial of SSI exemption and a duty demand based on alleged suppression, clubbing of units, and clandestine removal of yarn require positive corroborative evidence. The Court noted that registration records, RT-12 assessments, statements of customers and transporters, invoices, and yarn obligation returns were examined, but the Revenue did not establish that the two units were one concern or that plain reel hanks were actually cleared as cheese yarn. In alleged clandestine manufacture and removal cases, the burden remains on the Revenue, and the charge must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities supported by evidence, not conjecture or suspicion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 16 Feb 2020 08:56:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1841 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286191</link>
      <description>Denial of SSI exemption and a duty demand based on alleged suppression, clubbing of units, and clandestine removal of yarn require positive corroborative evidence. The Court noted that registration records, RT-12 assessments, statements of customers and transporters, invoices, and yarn obligation returns were examined, but the Revenue did not establish that the two units were one concern or that plain reel hanks were actually cleared as cheese yarn. In alleged clandestine manufacture and removal cases, the burden remains on the Revenue, and the charge must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities supported by evidence, not conjecture or suspicion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>