<?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>1990 (10) TMI 217 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81467</link>
    <description>Clearances made under departmental correspondence, filed returns and pre-authenticated customs transport vouchers did not by themselves establish clandestine removal or wilful suppression. Duty demand and penalty were set aside and remanded for fresh determination, subject to proof that the yarn was used in export goods and those goods were exported. Confiscation of yarn seized from a bonded store room was unsustainable where the goods were recorded in statutory accounts and had not been cleared; release was directed in accordance with law. Confiscation of plant and machinery was also set aside because an addendum introduced a fresh basis beyond the original notice and the alleged lapse stemmed substantially from misunderstanding of export procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:32:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 217 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81467</link>
      <description>Clearances made under departmental correspondence, filed returns and pre-authenticated customs transport vouchers did not by themselves establish clandestine removal or wilful suppression. Duty demand and penalty were set aside and remanded for fresh determination, subject to proof that the yarn was used in export goods and those goods were exported. Confiscation of yarn seized from a bonded store room was unsustainable where the goods were recorded in statutory accounts and had not been cleared; release was directed in accordance with law. Confiscation of plant and machinery was also set aside because an addendum introduced a fresh basis beyond the original notice and the alleged lapse stemmed substantially from misunderstanding of export procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>