<?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>1996 (12) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88242</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine removal, confiscation, penalty, and duty demand required a full appraisal of contemporaneous records and defence evidence. The record indicated that the goods had been loaded, the vehicle later developed engine trouble, and it was intercepted during a trial run after repair, with supporting statements from security staff and the general manager explaining the absence of a gate pass and debit entry. Because the finding of intent to evade duty was not reached on proper consideration of the surrounding material, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after hearing the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:29:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88242</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine removal, confiscation, penalty, and duty demand required a full appraisal of contemporaneous records and defence evidence. The record indicated that the goods had been loaded, the vehicle later developed engine trouble, and it was intercepted during a trial run after repair, with supporting statements from security staff and the general manager explaining the absence of a gate pass and debit entry. Because the finding of intent to evade duty was not reached on proper consideration of the surrounding material, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after hearing the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>