<?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 (8) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87081</link>
    <description>Valid delegation under the central excise framework can confer Collector-level powers on specially notified anti-evasion officers, so the show cause notice and adjudication were held competent. The absence of an express territorial description did not defeat jurisdiction, and Union Territories were treated as included within the statutory reference to State for this purpose. On the merits, bank deposits, admissions, removal of machines, and the manner of manufacture supported a finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance, so the duty demand was upheld. A separate personal penalty on the proprietor of a proprietary concern was not legally sustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:27:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87081</link>
      <description>Valid delegation under the central excise framework can confer Collector-level powers on specially notified anti-evasion officers, so the show cause notice and adjudication were held competent. The absence of an express territorial description did not defeat jurisdiction, and Union Territories were treated as included within the statutory reference to State for this purpose. On the merits, bank deposits, admissions, removal of machines, and the manner of manufacture supported a finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance, so the duty demand was upheld. A separate personal penalty on the proprietor of a proprietary concern was not legally sustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>