<?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 (8) TMI 513 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94449</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine removal and clearance of prime material as scrap were found unproved because the stock comparison relied on mismatched categories of goods and the statements cited did not establish diversion of prime material or undervaluation. The resulting duty demand could not be sustained on that material. Maintenance of RG 1 records remained mandatory, but the effect of non-entry depended on whether the omission was deliberate, negligent, or consistent with a bona fide trade practice. As that explanation had not been properly examined, the questions of confiscation and penalties were remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:49:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 513 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94449</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine removal and clearance of prime material as scrap were found unproved because the stock comparison relied on mismatched categories of goods and the statements cited did not establish diversion of prime material or undervaluation. The resulting duty demand could not be sustained on that material. Maintenance of RG 1 records remained mandatory, but the effect of non-entry depended on whether the omission was deliberate, negligent, or consistent with a bona fide trade practice. As that explanation had not been properly examined, the questions of confiscation and penalties were remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>