<?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>2025 (2) TMI 1962 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468999</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by reliable, corroborated evidence; here, the record showed separate registration of sister concerns, ER-1 compliance, construction of the new unit, and only trial production after shifting of packing machinery, so the duty demand was not sustainable except for the amount already paid on seized goods. Computer printouts from seized CPUs were inadmissible without statutory compliance, and uncorroborated or retracted statements could not sustain the demand or findings. As the principal allegation failed, the redemption fine and penalties also could not survive, while appropriation of the duty already paid was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 18:57:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1962 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468999</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by reliable, corroborated evidence; here, the record showed separate registration of sister concerns, ER-1 compliance, construction of the new unit, and only trial production after shifting of packing machinery, so the duty demand was not sustainable except for the amount already paid on seized goods. Computer printouts from seized CPUs were inadmissible without statutory compliance, and uncorroborated or retracted statements could not sustain the demand or findings. As the principal allegation failed, the redemption fine and penalties also could not survive, while appropriation of the duty already paid was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>