<?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>2026 (1) TMI 642 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784886</link>
    <description>The text addresses standards for establishing clandestine removal of goods, identifying four essential ingredients: procurement of raw materials, manufacture of final products, clandestine removal, and receipt of consideration; each must be proved with tangible corroboration and cannot rest solely on third-party diaries or witnesses. Statements recorded during investigation were discredited by cross-examination and alleged coercion, transport documents and consignment notes did not link the appellant, no cash trail or stock evidence was found, and manufacturing capacity was unproven. For these reasons the departmental demand based on third-party evidence was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:30:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 642 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784886</link>
      <description>The text addresses standards for establishing clandestine removal of goods, identifying four essential ingredients: procurement of raw materials, manufacture of final products, clandestine removal, and receipt of consideration; each must be proved with tangible corroboration and cannot rest solely on third-party diaries or witnesses. Statements recorded during investigation were discredited by cross-examination and alleged coercion, transport documents and consignment notes did not link the appellant, no cash trail or stock evidence was found, and manufacturing capacity was unproven. For these reasons the departmental demand based on third-party evidence was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>