<?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 (4) TMI 560 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99509</link>
    <description>Excisable goods must be entered in the prescribed records, and goods cleared without duty or not duly accounted for are liable to confiscation and penalty. The settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme did not bar confiscation or penalty for the seized goods. Goods bearing another&#039;s brand name and goods meant for export remained subject to the record-keeping and clearance requirements, and the explanation of an employee&#039;s prolonged sickness was rejected. Penalty was upheld against the manufacturers and Shri Tarun Oberoi, but penalty under Rule 209A could not be imposed on M/s. Reebok India Co. without proof of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation; its penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:05:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 560 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99509</link>
      <description>Excisable goods must be entered in the prescribed records, and goods cleared without duty or not duly accounted for are liable to confiscation and penalty. The settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme did not bar confiscation or penalty for the seized goods. Goods bearing another&#039;s brand name and goods meant for export remained subject to the record-keeping and clearance requirements, and the explanation of an employee&#039;s prolonged sickness was rejected. Penalty was upheld against the manufacturers and Shri Tarun Oberoi, but penalty under Rule 209A could not be imposed on M/s. Reebok India Co. without proof of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation; its penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>