<?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 (1) TMI 520 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95580</link>
    <description>Redemption fine remains leviable where goods are otherwise liable to confiscation, even if they have been provisionally released against security. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that provisional release does not by itself extinguish the power to impose redemption fine, and relied on Supreme Court authority supporting such levy in confiscable goods cases. The contrary view was rejected, and the maintainability of redemption fine was affirmed despite provisional release.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:35:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 520 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95580</link>
      <description>Redemption fine remains leviable where goods are otherwise liable to confiscation, even if they have been provisionally released against security. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that provisional release does not by itself extinguish the power to impose redemption fine, and relied on Supreme Court authority supporting such levy in confiscable goods cases. The contrary view was rejected, and the maintainability of redemption fine was affirmed despite provisional release.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>