TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty was leviable for clandestine removal and non-maintenance of statutory records under the Central Excise Rules.
Analysis: The assessee had not maintained the RG-1 register, had not filed the classification list, and had not maintained statutory records and accounts. On these facts, the finding of clandestine removal was upheld and the imposition of penalty was sustained. The questions relating to SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE and the excisability of pat scrap were left to the Tribunal for decision and were not determined on merits.
Conclusion: Penalty for clandestine removal was upheld against the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
