<?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>1992 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82972</link>
    <description>Finished springs that had been fully manufactured and painted were required to be entered in RG 1, because accountal is meant to capture duty liability once manufacture is complete. A plea that entry could wait until railway or other inspection was rejected, as that would leave finished goods outside statutory accountal at the choice of the inspecting agency. The only exception accepted was for 1,440 springs already recorded in RG 1, where the remaining lapse was treated as technical. Non-accountal of the balance justified confiscation and penalty, but the fine and penalty were reduced because the goods were tailor-made and there was no prior misconduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:44:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82972</link>
      <description>Finished springs that had been fully manufactured and painted were required to be entered in RG 1, because accountal is meant to capture duty liability once manufacture is complete. A plea that entry could wait until railway or other inspection was rejected, as that would leave finished goods outside statutory accountal at the choice of the inspecting agency. The only exception accepted was for 1,440 springs already recorded in RG 1, where the remaining lapse was treated as technical. Non-accountal of the balance justified confiscation and penalty, but the fine and penalty were reduced because the goods were tailor-made and there was no prior misconduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>