<?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 (7) TMI 53 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396384</link>
    <description>A charge of clandestine removal of sponge iron and coal must be established by tangible, corroborative evidence, not by weighbridge slips, estimated stock shortages, or an uncorroborated statement. Because the weighbridge was inside the factory premises, the slips did not by themselves show removal from the factory, and the shortages were only estimated. No supporting inquiry was made into excess production, extra raw material procurement, abnormal electricity use, transport movement, buyers, sale proceeds, or any money trail. The statement of the OSD was treated as a compliance declaration, not an admission. In the absence of clinching evidence, the demand of excise duty, interest, and penalty was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2020 08:25:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 53 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396384</link>
      <description>A charge of clandestine removal of sponge iron and coal must be established by tangible, corroborative evidence, not by weighbridge slips, estimated stock shortages, or an uncorroborated statement. Because the weighbridge was inside the factory premises, the slips did not by themselves show removal from the factory, and the shortages were only estimated. No supporting inquiry was made into excess production, extra raw material procurement, abnormal electricity use, transport movement, buyers, sale proceeds, or any money trail. The statement of the OSD was treated as a compliance declaration, not an admission. In the absence of clinching evidence, the demand of excise duty, interest, and penalty was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>