<?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>2000 (9) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93847</link>
    <description>Duty was payable on physicians&#039; samples cleared without payment of duty, but the quantified demand required fresh valuation and adjustment of amounts already paid. Contemporaneous outward and batch registers, together with admissions of the managing director and accountant, established clandestine removal of excisable medicines; the assessee failed to rebut the records with positive evidence, so the duty demand on such removals was sustained. Interest and mandatory penalty were not leviable because the relevant provisions came into force after the clearances and could not apply retrospectively. The extended period of limitation was invocable because suppression of facts was not convincingly disproved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:00:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93847</link>
      <description>Duty was payable on physicians&#039; samples cleared without payment of duty, but the quantified demand required fresh valuation and adjustment of amounts already paid. Contemporaneous outward and batch registers, together with admissions of the managing director and accountant, established clandestine removal of excisable medicines; the assessee failed to rebut the records with positive evidence, so the duty demand on such removals was sustained. Interest and mandatory penalty were not leviable because the relevant provisions came into force after the clearances and could not apply retrospectively. The extended period of limitation was invocable because suppression of facts was not convincingly disproved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>