<?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>2009 (7) TMI 341 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75327</link>
    <description>A proprietary concern and its proprietor were treated as legally indistinguishable for excise duty liability, and the real controller could be fastened with duty on the basis of statements and surrounding documents. Duty on clearances made through fabricated block transfers and fake export proof was discussed as recoverable under Section 11A, with interest under Section 11AB as a consequential levy. The extended limitation period was held unavailable where suppression was not sustainable after the documents were produced, so the separate NRL demand failed on limitation. Penalty on an employee was maintained for conscious participation in forgery and diversion of goods, but the quantum was substantially reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 341 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75327</link>
      <description>A proprietary concern and its proprietor were treated as legally indistinguishable for excise duty liability, and the real controller could be fastened with duty on the basis of statements and surrounding documents. Duty on clearances made through fabricated block transfers and fake export proof was discussed as recoverable under Section 11A, with interest under Section 11AB as a consequential levy. The extended limitation period was held unavailable where suppression was not sustainable after the documents were produced, so the separate NRL demand failed on limitation. Penalty on an employee was maintained for conscious participation in forgery and diversion of goods, but the quantum was substantially reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>