<?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>1988 (11) TMI 253 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74769</link>
    <description>Voluntary, inculpatory statements recorded after seizure, supported by surrounding conduct, were sufficient to sustain confiscation and penalty for gold and ornaments found to be unaccounted stock in trade rather than third-party property. Absolute confiscation of the foreign-marked gold biscuit was maintained, but the penalty was reduced. The two gold coins were not treated as smuggled goods on the facts; redemption was permitted and the redemption fine and penalty were reduced. The abetment charge against the co-appellant failed because there was no proof of prior participation in the offence; later false documentation, at most, made him an accessory after the event, so his penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:17:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 253 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74769</link>
      <description>Voluntary, inculpatory statements recorded after seizure, supported by surrounding conduct, were sufficient to sustain confiscation and penalty for gold and ornaments found to be unaccounted stock in trade rather than third-party property. Absolute confiscation of the foreign-marked gold biscuit was maintained, but the penalty was reduced. The two gold coins were not treated as smuggled goods on the facts; redemption was permitted and the redemption fine and penalty were reduced. The abetment charge against the co-appellant failed because there was no proof of prior participation in the offence; later false documentation, at most, made him an accessory after the event, so his penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>