<?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>2025 (7) TMI 65 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773997</link>
    <description>Electronically generated stock and sales records retrieved from the assessee&#039;s premises, owned up as its own records and corroborated by physical and departmental material, were held not to become inadmissible merely because a separate Section 36B certificate was not produced. On the facts, the tribunal found the contemporaneous shortages, loose slips, admissions of the Director and absence of credible retraction sufficient to sustain the allegation of clandestine removal and the related demand. Cross-examination was treated as unnecessary on these facts. While the demand and finding of clandestine removal were upheld, the personal penalty on each Director was reduced on equitable considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 14:06:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 65 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773997</link>
      <description>Electronically generated stock and sales records retrieved from the assessee&#039;s premises, owned up as its own records and corroborated by physical and departmental material, were held not to become inadmissible merely because a separate Section 36B certificate was not produced. On the facts, the tribunal found the contemporaneous shortages, loose slips, admissions of the Director and absence of credible retraction sufficient to sustain the allegation of clandestine removal and the related demand. Cross-examination was treated as unnecessary on these facts. While the demand and finding of clandestine removal were upheld, the personal penalty on each Director was reduced on equitable considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773997</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>