<?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 (3) TMI 729 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105648</link>
    <description>Goods brought into a licensed factory without entry in the statutory register and without intimation or prior permission were treated as a breach of accounting and control requirements, making the duty-paid steel scrap liable to confiscation and penalty. The explanation that the consignment belonged to a sister concern and was unloaded because of bad weather was rejected on the facts, as most of the goods had already reached that concern. Omission to expressly cite Rule 51A in the show-cause notice was not considered fatal because the notice set out the contravention facts and referred to the connected confiscatory and penal provisions. The confiscation and penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:33:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 729 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105648</link>
      <description>Goods brought into a licensed factory without entry in the statutory register and without intimation or prior permission were treated as a breach of accounting and control requirements, making the duty-paid steel scrap liable to confiscation and penalty. The explanation that the consignment belonged to a sister concern and was unloaded because of bad weather was rejected on the facts, as most of the goods had already reached that concern. Omission to expressly cite Rule 51A in the show-cause notice was not considered fatal because the notice set out the contravention facts and referred to the connected confiscatory and penal provisions. The confiscation and penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>