<?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>2023 (12) TMI 1058 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447374</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata partially allowed the appeal against central excise duty demands totaling Rs.85,74,214. The tribunal set aside duty demand of Rs.61,24,002 for alleged clandestine clearance due to lack of evidence. It reduced duty demand of Rs.22,99,672 to Rs.3,02,176 based on reconciled stock shortage of 36.13 MT. Duty demand of Rs.1,50,540 for under-valuation was upheld as undisputed. All penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 were set aside, finding no evidence of intentional duty evasion or clandestine clearance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Dec 2023 13:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1058 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447374</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata partially allowed the appeal against central excise duty demands totaling Rs.85,74,214. The tribunal set aside duty demand of Rs.61,24,002 for alleged clandestine clearance due to lack of evidence. It reduced duty demand of Rs.22,99,672 to Rs.3,02,176 based on reconciled stock shortage of 36.13 MT. Duty demand of Rs.1,50,540 for under-valuation was upheld as undisputed. All penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 were set aside, finding no evidence of intentional duty evasion or clandestine clearance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>