<?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 279 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774211</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Chennai dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging duty evasion allegations against a manufacturer. The case involved clandestine removal claims and failure to maintain proper stock accounts for correlating input-output ratios in GAC production. The Madras HC had earlier directed verification of records to levy duty based on actual production. The Commissioner&#039;s verification report showed the assessee&#039;s GAC output at 38.36%, exceeding both Coconut Development Board benchmarks and Deputy Commissioner estimates. Revenue failed to demonstrate any discrepancies in the verification process or point out improprieties in the assessee&#039;s records, despite alleging non-compliance with stock maintenance requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 279 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774211</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Chennai dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging duty evasion allegations against a manufacturer. The case involved clandestine removal claims and failure to maintain proper stock accounts for correlating input-output ratios in GAC production. The Madras HC had earlier directed verification of records to levy duty based on actual production. The Commissioner&#039;s verification report showed the assessee&#039;s GAC output at 38.36%, exceeding both Coconut Development Board benchmarks and Deputy Commissioner estimates. Revenue failed to demonstrate any discrepancies in the verification process or point out improprieties in the assessee&#039;s records, despite alleging non-compliance with stock maintenance requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>