<?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>1993 (10) TMI 195 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83693</link>
    <description>Fully packed clocks and watch movements kept outside statutory records were held liable to confiscation because the assessee gave no credible explanation that testing required post-packing and produced no evidence of that practice. The 77 clocks allegedly produced on the date of visit were given partial relief, as their confiscation was set aside on the view that they may have been produced that day. The 1104 clocks found at the project office attracted duty because the claim that they had earlier been cleared on duty and later returned for repairs was unsupported by documentary evidence, buyer correspondence, or clearance records. The redemption fine and penalty were reduced accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:44:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 195 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83693</link>
      <description>Fully packed clocks and watch movements kept outside statutory records were held liable to confiscation because the assessee gave no credible explanation that testing required post-packing and produced no evidence of that practice. The 77 clocks allegedly produced on the date of visit were given partial relief, as their confiscation was set aside on the view that they may have been produced that day. The 1104 clocks found at the project office attracted duty because the claim that they had earlier been cleared on duty and later returned for repairs was unsupported by documentary evidence, buyer correspondence, or clearance records. The redemption fine and penalty were reduced accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>