<?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 (11) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80395</link>
    <description>Factory premises for central excise purposes include areas shown within the approved ground plan, including a cycle stand operated by an independent contractor. Excisable goods stored or removed from such an area remain subject to prescribed accounting requirements. Clandestine removal may be inferred where gate passes are invalid or inconsistent and records reveal unexplained date discrepancies, missing endorsements, non-compliance with return procedures, altered transport or despatch records, inconsistent challans, and value mismatches. Such evidence can support confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties, including where a transporter participated in the irregularity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:37:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (11) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80395</link>
      <description>Factory premises for central excise purposes include areas shown within the approved ground plan, including a cycle stand operated by an independent contractor. Excisable goods stored or removed from such an area remain subject to prescribed accounting requirements. Clandestine removal may be inferred where gate passes are invalid or inconsistent and records reveal unexplained date discrepancies, missing endorsements, non-compliance with return procedures, altered transport or despatch records, inconsistent challans, and value mismatches. Such evidence can support confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties, including where a transporter participated in the irregularity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>