<?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 (3) TMI 848 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451067</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance cannot be sustained on the basis of a single test heat and extrapolation of fuel consumption alone. The tribunal found that Revenue relied only on LDO consumption in one test heat and a mathematical projection of annual production, without corroborative inquiry into raw material use, stock verification, buyer identity, transport particulars, or other tangible evidence of actual removal without duty. Because clandestine production requires concrete, corroborated proof and not assumptions or formula-based estimates, the allegation of excess manufacture and wrongful refund failed and the order dropping the demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:15:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 848 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451067</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance cannot be sustained on the basis of a single test heat and extrapolation of fuel consumption alone. The tribunal found that Revenue relied only on LDO consumption in one test heat and a mathematical projection of annual production, without corroborative inquiry into raw material use, stock verification, buyer identity, transport particulars, or other tangible evidence of actual removal without duty. Because clandestine production requires concrete, corroborated proof and not assumptions or formula-based estimates, the allegation of excess manufacture and wrongful refund failed and the order dropping the demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>