<?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 345 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54384</link>
    <description>Demand, penalties and confiscations based on alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance were held unsustainable where the case rested on rutile sand consumption, an annual capacity certificate and a managing director&#039;s statement without independent corroboration. Rutile sand was not shown to be the sole or principal raw material for welding electrodes, and no excess electricity consumption, excess procurement of other inputs, or buyer-side evidence of clandestine removals was established. The statement alone did not prove clandestine clearance, and the record reflected assumptions rather than a complete investigation. The appeals were therefore allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2024 14:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 345 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54384</link>
      <description>Demand, penalties and confiscations based on alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance were held unsustainable where the case rested on rutile sand consumption, an annual capacity certificate and a managing director&#039;s statement without independent corroboration. Rutile sand was not shown to be the sole or principal raw material for welding electrodes, and no excess electricity consumption, excess procurement of other inputs, or buyer-side evidence of clandestine removals was established. The statement alone did not prove clandestine clearance, and the record reflected assumptions rather than a complete investigation. The appeals were therefore allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>