<?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>2005 (3) TMI 221 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53940</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court remanded the appeals filed by M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. &amp;amp; Ors. for a joint decision on appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue. A show cause notice was issued for duty evasion, with penalties imposed. Revenue officers found documents indicating evasion at the company&#039;s premises and their distributor. The appellants challenged the lack of evidence from the manufacturer&#039;s premises and raised concerns about the sustainability of the demand without proper evidence. Legal contentions focused on the standard of proof for clandestine removal charges, emphasizing the necessity of positive evidence. The Revenue relied on the distributor&#039;s admission of receiving goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:32:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 221 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53940</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court remanded the appeals filed by M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. &amp;amp; Ors. for a joint decision on appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue. A show cause notice was issued for duty evasion, with penalties imposed. Revenue officers found documents indicating evasion at the company&#039;s premises and their distributor. The appellants challenged the lack of evidence from the manufacturer&#039;s premises and raised concerns about the sustainability of the demand without proper evidence. Legal contentions focused on the standard of proof for clandestine removal charges, emphasizing the necessity of positive evidence. The Revenue relied on the distributor&#039;s admission of receiving goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>