<?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 (1) TMI 1296 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305183</link>
    <description>A charge of clandestine removal of gutka, pan masala and related materials cannot be sustained on uncorroborated third-party railway or transporter records and statements that are retracted or fail scrutiny; independent evidence linking the assessee to manufacture, removal and transport is required, so the related excise demands, confiscation and penalties were set aside. Allegations based on alleged unaccounted receipt of packing material and stock shortages or excesses were also rejected for want of reliable corroboration, while a limited demand against Keyman Laminators was sustained where direct evidence showed removal of laminates without invoice, with equal penalty upheld and redemption fine reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:01:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 1296 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305183</link>
      <description>A charge of clandestine removal of gutka, pan masala and related materials cannot be sustained on uncorroborated third-party railway or transporter records and statements that are retracted or fail scrutiny; independent evidence linking the assessee to manufacture, removal and transport is required, so the related excise demands, confiscation and penalties were set aside. Allegations based on alleged unaccounted receipt of packing material and stock shortages or excesses were also rejected for want of reliable corroboration, while a limited demand against Keyman Laminators was sustained where direct evidence showed removal of laminates without invoice, with equal penalty upheld and redemption fine reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>