<?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 690 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99680</link>
    <description>Goods duly accounted for in statutory records could not be confiscated merely because the department described them differently, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of doubt where no evidence showed unauthorised clearance. Unrecorded scrap goods, however, were rightly treated as a contravention because they were required to be entered in the prescribed register; the confiscation was sustained in principle, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced because the value was small. Mere non-filing of a classification list, where the remaining goods were duly entered and lying in the factory, did not by itself justify confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:40:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 690 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99680</link>
      <description>Goods duly accounted for in statutory records could not be confiscated merely because the department described them differently, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of doubt where no evidence showed unauthorised clearance. Unrecorded scrap goods, however, were rightly treated as a contravention because they were required to be entered in the prescribed register; the confiscation was sustained in principle, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced because the value was small. Mere non-filing of a classification list, where the remaining goods were duly entered and lying in the factory, did not by itself justify confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>