<?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>Investigating Officer Failed to Follow Safeguards u/s 36B in Case of Alleged Clandestine Removal.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74246</link>
    <description>Clandestine Removal - non-production of corroborative evidences - The provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944 of the Act are pari-materia. It is evident from the panchanama, and the appeals records that the investigating officer had failed to follow the safeguard as mandated under Section 36B of the Act. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:58:57 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:58:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=740411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Investigating Officer Failed to Follow Safeguards u/s 36B in Case of Alleged Clandestine Removal.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74246</link>
      <description>Clandestine Removal - non-production of corroborative evidences - The provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944 of the Act are pari-materia. It is evident from the panchanama, and the appeals records that the investigating officer had failed to follow the safeguard as mandated under Section 36B of the Act. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:58:57 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>