<?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>2001 (1) TMI 382 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95421</link>
    <description>Confiscation of welding electrodes was sustained because the goods were found packed in cases inside the factory, shown as ready for despatch, and not entered in RG 1; the material did not establish that they were unfinished goods requiring further processing. The duty demand on non-accounted clearances was also upheld because the record disclosed no basis to interfere with the confirmed demand. Penalty on the manufacturer was maintained for non-maintenance of RG 1 and other statutory records. A separate personal penalty on the proprietor was set aside because no independent basis existed once penalty had already been imposed on the firm on the same facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:46:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 382 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95421</link>
      <description>Confiscation of welding electrodes was sustained because the goods were found packed in cases inside the factory, shown as ready for despatch, and not entered in RG 1; the material did not establish that they were unfinished goods requiring further processing. The duty demand on non-accounted clearances was also upheld because the record disclosed no basis to interfere with the confirmed demand. Penalty on the manufacturer was maintained for non-maintenance of RG 1 and other statutory records. A separate personal penalty on the proprietor was set aside because no independent basis existed once penalty had already been imposed on the firm on the same facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>