<?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>1989 (6) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74807</link>
    <description>A belated, unparticularised allegation that the accountant&#039;s note book was fabricated did not establish breach of natural justice, because the appellants themselves produced the document, one partner&#039;s signature appeared on it, and the entries were corroborated by the other partner&#039;s statement and earlier defence material. The refusal to summon the accountant therefore caused no prejudice. Clandestine removal of biscuits was also supported by the intercepted consignment, seized records, private note book, purchaser statements and the partner&#039;s admission; the recorded sales exceeded the small-scale exemption limit under Notification No. 80/80-CE, so duty was payable on the excess clearances. The duty demand was sustained, while the penalty was reduced as excessive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:39:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (6) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74807</link>
      <description>A belated, unparticularised allegation that the accountant&#039;s note book was fabricated did not establish breach of natural justice, because the appellants themselves produced the document, one partner&#039;s signature appeared on it, and the entries were corroborated by the other partner&#039;s statement and earlier defence material. The refusal to summon the accountant therefore caused no prejudice. Clandestine removal of biscuits was also supported by the intercepted consignment, seized records, private note book, purchaser statements and the partner&#039;s admission; the recorded sales exceeded the small-scale exemption limit under Notification No. 80/80-CE, so duty was payable on the excess clearances. The duty demand was sustained, while the penalty was reduced as excessive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>