<?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>2002 (6) TMI 140 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51666</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal cannot be sustained on a single factor alone and must be proved by corroborative evidence, including material showing actual consumption of inputs and other supporting circumstances. The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner&#039;s finding that the record did not disclose any infirmity in this requirement of proof. On that basis, the allegation of clandestine removal was not established and the Department&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:12:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 140 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51666</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal cannot be sustained on a single factor alone and must be proved by corroborative evidence, including material showing actual consumption of inputs and other supporting circumstances. The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner&#039;s finding that the record did not disclose any infirmity in this requirement of proof. On that basis, the allegation of clandestine removal was not established and the Department&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>