<?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 (11) TMI 1079 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762093</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal alleging clandestine removal and raw material shortage. The investigation lacked proper procedure with no physical stock verification, only eye-estimation. No tangible evidence supported shortage claims despite examining suppliers who showed no discrepancies. Revenue contradictorily alleged both material shortage and clandestine clearance without explaining raw material procurement sources. No evidence of excess electricity consumption, transportation methods, or additional labor was presented. The adjudicating authority&#039;s findings were upheld as charges were unsustainable due to procedural lapses and insufficient evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:45:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1079 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762093</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal alleging clandestine removal and raw material shortage. The investigation lacked proper procedure with no physical stock verification, only eye-estimation. No tangible evidence supported shortage claims despite examining suppliers who showed no discrepancies. Revenue contradictorily alleged both material shortage and clandestine clearance without explaining raw material procurement sources. No evidence of excess electricity consumption, transportation methods, or additional labor was presented. The adjudicating authority&#039;s findings were upheld as charges were unsustainable due to procedural lapses and insufficient evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>