<?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 (12) TMI 339 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95267</link>
    <description>Duty remained payable on high speed diesel oil obtained under a rule-based procurement scheme where 1,980 litres was not duly accounted for after alleged transit loss and 62,983 litres was diverted from the permitted use for export manufacture. The document states that loss in transit did not excuse liability unless properly reported and accounted for, and that diversion from the authorised purpose justified the duty demand on the diverted quantity. It further states that penalty under Section 11AC was not sustainable because the duty did not arise from a Section 11A determination against the assessee as manufacturer, but penalty under Rule 173Q was maintainable for diversion of the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:00:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 339 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95267</link>
      <description>Duty remained payable on high speed diesel oil obtained under a rule-based procurement scheme where 1,980 litres was not duly accounted for after alleged transit loss and 62,983 litres was diverted from the permitted use for export manufacture. The document states that loss in transit did not excuse liability unless properly reported and accounted for, and that diversion from the authorised purpose justified the duty demand on the diverted quantity. It further states that penalty under Section 11AC was not sustainable because the duty did not arise from a Section 11A determination against the assessee as manufacturer, but penalty under Rule 173Q was maintainable for diversion of the goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>