<?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>1994 (1) TMI 166 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83466</link>
    <description>A time limit fixed for payment of redemption fine cannot be applied rigidly where the statutory scheme preserves an option to redeem confiscated goods, and ancillary discretion must be exercised consistently with that scheme. Here, no order had closed the redemption option after expiry of the original period, and the department&#039;s later communication requesting immediate payment supported the inference that time had been extended. Because the fine was paid shortly thereafter, the refusal to recognise the payment was inconsistent with the legislative intent. Absolute confiscation was therefore not sustained, and the redemption option was treated as validly exercised, requiring release of the goods to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:42:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 166 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83466</link>
      <description>A time limit fixed for payment of redemption fine cannot be applied rigidly where the statutory scheme preserves an option to redeem confiscated goods, and ancillary discretion must be exercised consistently with that scheme. Here, no order had closed the redemption option after expiry of the original period, and the department&#039;s later communication requesting immediate payment supported the inference that time had been extended. Because the fine was paid shortly thereafter, the refusal to recognise the payment was inconsistent with the legislative intent. Absolute confiscation was therefore not sustained, and the redemption option was treated as validly exercised, requiring release of the goods to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>