<?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 (2) TMI 285 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786090</link>
    <description>Savings clause in the CGST transitional provisions permits initiation and continuation of proceedings under the repealed Central Excise Act; consequently proceedings launched under the earlier law were held valid. Estimates of clandestine production based solely on electricity consumption were rejected as legally insufficient because the calculations assumed uniform production efficiency without corroborative factors; therefore alleged excess production and clandestine removal could not be established and related duty, interest and penalties were set aside. The adjudicatory conclusion required additional independent evidence beyond unit electricity-to-production ratios; appeals by the taxpayers were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 09:25:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=884597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 285 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786090</link>
      <description>Savings clause in the CGST transitional provisions permits initiation and continuation of proceedings under the repealed Central Excise Act; consequently proceedings launched under the earlier law were held valid. Estimates of clandestine production based solely on electricity consumption were rejected as legally insufficient because the calculations assumed uniform production efficiency without corroborative factors; therefore alleged excess production and clandestine removal could not be established and related duty, interest and penalties were set aside. The adjudicatory conclusion required additional independent evidence beyond unit electricity-to-production ratios; appeals by the taxpayers were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>