<?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 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92124</link>
    <description>Private D-series registers recovered from the production manager&#039;s custody, together with un-retracted statements of persons familiar with the factory operations, were treated as admissible and reliable evidence of manufacture and clearance of asbestos cement pressure pipes with less than the prescribed fly ash content. On that basis, the denial of exemption under Notification No. 38/93-C.E., the duty demand, appropriation of the deposited amount, confiscation-related relief and the company penalty were sustained. However, the personal penalty on the managing director under Rule 209A was set aside because no specific foundation of abetment had been established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:12:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92124</link>
      <description>Private D-series registers recovered from the production manager&#039;s custody, together with un-retracted statements of persons familiar with the factory operations, were treated as admissible and reliable evidence of manufacture and clearance of asbestos cement pressure pipes with less than the prescribed fly ash content. On that basis, the denial of exemption under Notification No. 38/93-C.E., the duty demand, appropriation of the deposited amount, confiscation-related relief and the company penalty were sustained. However, the personal penalty on the managing director under Rule 209A was set aside because no specific foundation of abetment had been established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>