<?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>1999 (3) TMI 212 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90911</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty was found where the non-entry in the RG 1 register was explained as arising from the excise clerk&#039;s leave, the goods had not left the premises, no transport document was produced, and no supporting material showed proposed clandestine removal. On those facts, the allegation of clandestine removal was not treated as established at the stay stage, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived with the appeal admitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:31:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 212 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90911</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty was found where the non-entry in the RG 1 register was explained as arising from the excise clerk&#039;s leave, the goods had not left the premises, no transport document was produced, and no supporting material showed proposed clandestine removal. On those facts, the allegation of clandestine removal was not treated as established at the stay stage, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived with the appeal admitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>