<?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>2004 (7) TMI 125 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52965</link>
    <description>Molasses shortages treated as storage loss are not liable to duty when the loss remains within the Board-prescribed tolerance of 2% of total molasses stored and no evidence establishes clandestine removal. The duty demand was unsustainable because the recorded loss was below that limit and the allegation of clandestine removal lacked evidentiary support. A separate application under Rule 147 was not required on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:29:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 125 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52965</link>
      <description>Molasses shortages treated as storage loss are not liable to duty when the loss remains within the Board-prescribed tolerance of 2% of total molasses stored and no evidence establishes clandestine removal. The duty demand was unsustainable because the recorded loss was below that limit and the allegation of clandestine removal lacked evidentiary support. A separate application under Rule 147 was not required on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>