<?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>2002 (4) TMI 673 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104824</link>
    <description>Confiscation of excisable goods found lying in the factory was held unsustainable where there was no showing that they had been cleared without duty, and mere accounting irregularity was insufficient to justify confiscation. The confiscation of 450 boxes was set aside. Because the confiscation order failed, the redemption fine and penalty based on it could not stand in their existing form and had to be redetermined by the adjudicating authority after giving the party an opportunity. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:50:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 673 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104824</link>
      <description>Confiscation of excisable goods found lying in the factory was held unsustainable where there was no showing that they had been cleared without duty, and mere accounting irregularity was insufficient to justify confiscation. The confiscation of 450 boxes was set aside. Because the confiscation order failed, the redemption fine and penalty based on it could not stand in their existing form and had to be redetermined by the adjudicating authority after giving the party an opportunity. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>