<?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 (10) TMI 801 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100338</link>
    <description>Shortages of raw material and finished goods found on stock verification were treated as established because the partner of the appellant admitted the shortages and voluntarily debited the duty amount, so the objection that no physical verification was carried out was rejected. The only interference made was on quantum: the personal penalty was considered excessive on the facts and reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000, while the impugned order was otherwise upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:36:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 801 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100338</link>
      <description>Shortages of raw material and finished goods found on stock verification were treated as established because the partner of the appellant admitted the shortages and voluntarily debited the duty amount, so the objection that no physical verification was carried out was rejected. The only interference made was on quantum: the personal penalty was considered excessive on the facts and reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000, while the impugned order was otherwise upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>