<?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>1997 (6) TMI 108 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86821</link>
    <description>Delayed D-3 intimation for re-entry of motor vehicles did not, by itself, justify a fresh duty demand where the vehicles remained conclusively identifiable through chassis and engine numbers as the same goods earlier cleared. The purpose of the intimation is to link returned goods with their prior clearance, and that link was not broken on these facts, so the duty demand was not sustained. The procedural default was nevertheless treated as an irregularity, and penalty was upheld despite the setting aside of the duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:42:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 108 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86821</link>
      <description>Delayed D-3 intimation for re-entry of motor vehicles did not, by itself, justify a fresh duty demand where the vehicles remained conclusively identifiable through chassis and engine numbers as the same goods earlier cleared. The purpose of the intimation is to link returned goods with their prior clearance, and that link was not broken on these facts, so the duty demand was not sustained. The procedural default was nevertheless treated as an irregularity, and penalty was upheld despite the setting aside of the duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>