<?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>Manufacturer Wins Relief Against Rs. 2.3 Crore Duty Demands Based on Theoretical Input-Output Ratios Under Section 36B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85843</link>
    <description>CESTAT set aside multiple duty demands totaling over Rs. 2.3 crores against appellant manufacturer of LABSA. Primary allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal based on theoretical input-output ratios (1:1.475 vs 1:1.45) were rejected due to lack of chemical examination. Demands based on batch charges, computer printouts, and diary entries were dropped for insufficient evidence and non-compliance with Section 36B requirements. Claims regarding spent acid clearance and CENVAT credit denial were invalidated. Only the matter of Rs. 3,27,046/- regarding consignment agent sales was remanded for verification. Associated penalties on appellant and co-appellants were set aside, as demands were primarily based on assumptions without corroborative evidence of unauthorized raw material procurement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=799280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Manufacturer Wins Relief Against Rs. 2.3 Crore Duty Demands Based on Theoretical Input-Output Ratios Under Section 36B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85843</link>
      <description>CESTAT set aside multiple duty demands totaling over Rs. 2.3 crores against appellant manufacturer of LABSA. Primary allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal based on theoretical input-output ratios (1:1.475 vs 1:1.45) were rejected due to lack of chemical examination. Demands based on batch charges, computer printouts, and diary entries were dropped for insufficient evidence and non-compliance with Section 36B requirements. Claims regarding spent acid clearance and CENVAT credit denial were invalidated. Only the matter of Rs. 3,27,046/- regarding consignment agent sales was remanded for verification. Associated penalties on appellant and co-appellants were set aside, as demands were primarily based on assumptions without corroborative evidence of unauthorized raw material procurement.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>