<?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 (12) TMI 806 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105604</link>
    <description>Unexplained shortage of inputs supported confirmation of duty where Modvat credit had been claimed, because proper accounting of credited inputs was required and the assessee&#039;s explanation was insufficient. Confiscation of duplex board found in excess stock was not sustainable because the goods remained within the factory, were only in paper packing, and there was no evidence of clandestine removal or attempted unaccounted clearance; the redemption fine was therefore set aside. The personal penalty was reduced because, although the duty demand survived, the confiscation did not and the original penalty was excessive on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:02:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 806 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105604</link>
      <description>Unexplained shortage of inputs supported confirmation of duty where Modvat credit had been claimed, because proper accounting of credited inputs was required and the assessee&#039;s explanation was insufficient. Confiscation of duplex board found in excess stock was not sustainable because the goods remained within the factory, were only in paper packing, and there was no evidence of clandestine removal or attempted unaccounted clearance; the redemption fine was therefore set aside. The personal penalty was reduced because, although the duty demand survived, the confiscation did not and the original penalty was excessive on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>