<?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>2024 (2) TMI 13 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448862</link>
    <description>A charge of clandestine removal of brass and copper goods was rejected because it was not supported by positive, corroborative evidence. Private records and patterned statements of buyers and co-accused were found insufficient without proof of cash receipts, transport arrangements, excess raw material use, abnormal power consumption, labour deployment, or actual movement of unaccounted goods. A minor stock shortage, without reliable stock-taking or linkage to clearances, also could not establish duty demand. Goods admittedly made on job work basis were not rendered dutiable merely because the prescribed procedure was not followed, where the job work nature was otherwise evident. The duty demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2024 07:43:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 13 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448862</link>
      <description>A charge of clandestine removal of brass and copper goods was rejected because it was not supported by positive, corroborative evidence. Private records and patterned statements of buyers and co-accused were found insufficient without proof of cash receipts, transport arrangements, excess raw material use, abnormal power consumption, labour deployment, or actual movement of unaccounted goods. A minor stock shortage, without reliable stock-taking or linkage to clearances, also could not establish duty demand. Goods admittedly made on job work basis were not rendered dutiable merely because the prescribed procedure was not followed, where the job work nature was otherwise evident. The duty demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>