<?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>1995 (7) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84312</link>
    <description>Personal penalty proceedings require a specific show cause notice clearly proposing penalty against the concerned partners and giving them a fair chance to answer; where the notice is directed mainly to the firm and does not clearly allege individual liability, the penalties are not sustainable and are set aside. By contrast, where removal of excisable goods without payment of duty is supported by evidence such as forged gate passes, absence of statutory entries, and transportation of contraband goods, the duty demand and confiscation of the goods and truck may be upheld. On the facts recorded, the personal penalties failed, but the duty liability and confiscation were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:50:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84312</link>
      <description>Personal penalty proceedings require a specific show cause notice clearly proposing penalty against the concerned partners and giving them a fair chance to answer; where the notice is directed mainly to the firm and does not clearly allege individual liability, the penalties are not sustainable and are set aside. By contrast, where removal of excisable goods without payment of duty is supported by evidence such as forged gate passes, absence of statutory entries, and transportation of contraband goods, the duty demand and confiscation of the goods and truck may be upheld. On the facts recorded, the personal penalties failed, but the duty liability and confiscation were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>