<?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>2008 (9) TMI 341 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34477</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand confirmation and penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act against the appellant. It held that the demand solely based on balance sheet figures submitted for tender purposes, without evidence of actual production or clearance without duty payment, was unsustainable. Emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and lack of investigation by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted consequential relief to the appellants in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 341 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34477</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand confirmation and penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act against the appellant. It held that the demand solely based on balance sheet figures submitted for tender purposes, without evidence of actual production or clearance without duty payment, was unsustainable. Emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and lack of investigation by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted consequential relief to the appellants in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>