<?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>2010 (5) TMI 276 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78069</link>
    <description>The cancellation of a registration certificate for a firm dealing in iron steel items was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Member (T) due to non-operation from the registered premises and failure to notify a change of address. The cancellation with retrospective effect from April 1, 2006, and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on both partners were deemed appropriate to prevent fraudulent practices like issuing bogus invoices without actual sales. The decision was supported by evidence showing the firm had not operated from the registered premises, failed to maintain required records, and lacked a legitimate business location.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 276 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78069</link>
      <description>The cancellation of a registration certificate for a firm dealing in iron steel items was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Member (T) due to non-operation from the registered premises and failure to notify a change of address. The cancellation with retrospective effect from April 1, 2006, and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on both partners were deemed appropriate to prevent fraudulent practices like issuing bogus invoices without actual sales. The decision was supported by evidence showing the firm had not operated from the registered premises, failed to maintain required records, and lacked a legitimate business location.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>