<?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>2022 (11) TMI 924 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430500</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous statutory records showing receipt of polycarbonate containers back for repair, including intimation forms, Form V entries and invoices cross-referencing earlier clearances, supported treatment under Rule 173H and negatived clandestine manufacture. The departmental reliance on the security supervisor&#039;s register and statement was found unreliable, especially without cross-examination, and there was no convincing evidence of excess raw material procurement. The exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE was also available because the record did not show prohibited credit on goods manufactured in the same factory, and Modvat credit on inputs for another product did not breach the condition. Duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties therefore could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:53:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 924 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430500</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous statutory records showing receipt of polycarbonate containers back for repair, including intimation forms, Form V entries and invoices cross-referencing earlier clearances, supported treatment under Rule 173H and negatived clandestine manufacture. The departmental reliance on the security supervisor&#039;s register and statement was found unreliable, especially without cross-examination, and there was no convincing evidence of excess raw material procurement. The exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE was also available because the record did not show prohibited credit on goods manufactured in the same factory, and Modvat credit on inputs for another product did not breach the condition. Duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties therefore could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>