<?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>1986 (2) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72206</link>
    <description>Non-accountal of gold ornaments in a dealer&#039;s register was treated as an accounting lapse rather than evidence of clandestine disposal. On that basis, the confiscation-related redemption fine was maintained because the breach justified forfeiture, but the personal penalty was found excessive in relation to the nature of the default and was reduced. The matter turned on proportionality between the established lapse and the punitive consequence imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72206</link>
      <description>Non-accountal of gold ornaments in a dealer&#039;s register was treated as an accounting lapse rather than evidence of clandestine disposal. On that basis, the confiscation-related redemption fine was maintained because the breach justified forfeiture, but the personal penalty was found excessive in relation to the nature of the default and was reduced. The matter turned on proportionality between the established lapse and the punitive consequence imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>