<?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>2000 (8) TMI 119 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49889</link>
    <description>Reliable contemporaneous records maintained by an assessee can establish clandestine removal when the entries are not disproved and the supporting explanation lacks statutory records or credible evidence. On that basis, removal of spun yarn and glass wool was treated as proved where loading books and outward gate registers showed quantities cleared in excess of duty-paid stock and the defence of rejected goods or repacking was rejected as unsupported. Waste and scrap of glass wool was also held dutiable because it was covered under the tariff heading and its excisability was admitted. The duty demand and penalty were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:06:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 119 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49889</link>
      <description>Reliable contemporaneous records maintained by an assessee can establish clandestine removal when the entries are not disproved and the supporting explanation lacks statutory records or credible evidence. On that basis, removal of spun yarn and glass wool was treated as proved where loading books and outward gate registers showed quantities cleared in excess of duty-paid stock and the defence of rejected goods or repacking was rejected as unsupported. Waste and scrap of glass wool was also held dutiable because it was covered under the tariff heading and its excisability was admitted. The duty demand and penalty were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>