<?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>2003 (8) TMI 82 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52016</link>
    <description>In remand proceedings, enhancement of the earlier duty demand and penalty was impermissible; the assessee also retained entitlement to SSI exemption, cum-duty valuation, and exclusion of witness statements not tested by cross-examination. Clandestine manufacture and clearance of copper/brass sheets was nevertheless established cumulatively from seized goods, unreliable records, installed machinery, labour presence, fuel and electricity consumption, and admissions, so the revised duty demand was sustained on recomputation. Fraudulent evasion justified extended limitation and interest, but the manufacturer&#039;s penalty had to remain at the earlier level and separate penalties on individual officers were set aside because the invoked penalty provision did not fit their role.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 82 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52016</link>
      <description>In remand proceedings, enhancement of the earlier duty demand and penalty was impermissible; the assessee also retained entitlement to SSI exemption, cum-duty valuation, and exclusion of witness statements not tested by cross-examination. Clandestine manufacture and clearance of copper/brass sheets was nevertheless established cumulatively from seized goods, unreliable records, installed machinery, labour presence, fuel and electricity consumption, and admissions, so the revised duty demand was sustained on recomputation. Fraudulent evasion justified extended limitation and interest, but the manufacturer&#039;s penalty had to remain at the earlier level and separate penalties on individual officers were set aside because the invoked penalty provision did not fit their role.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>