<?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 (4) TMI 997 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789928</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal cannot be sustained solely on discrepancies between VAT returns and ER-1 returns; positive, tangible and corroborative evidence is required, and documentary reconciliation such as a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate and supporting records must be considered. On the facts described, the reconciliation explaining trading activity, non-excisable sales, removal of inputs as such and sale of fixed assets defeated the allegation. The extended period of limitation also was unavailable because the Department relied on material already available from audit and statutory records, without independent proof of suppression. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:21:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 997 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789928</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal cannot be sustained solely on discrepancies between VAT returns and ER-1 returns; positive, tangible and corroborative evidence is required, and documentary reconciliation such as a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate and supporting records must be considered. On the facts described, the reconciliation explaining trading activity, non-excisable sales, removal of inputs as such and sale of fixed assets defeated the allegation. The extended period of limitation also was unavailable because the Department relied on material already available from audit and statutory records, without independent proof of suppression. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>