<?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 732 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106221</link>
    <description>Invoices issued for aluminium scrap not covered by the dealer&#039;s registration certificate justified penalty under Rule 173Q, as the item was not included in the registration during the relevant period. The later addition of aluminium scrap to the certificate was treated only as a mitigating factor and did not negate liability. Penalty was therefore upheld in principle, but the Tribunal reduced the quantum on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:58:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 732 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106221</link>
      <description>Invoices issued for aluminium scrap not covered by the dealer&#039;s registration certificate justified penalty under Rule 173Q, as the item was not included in the registration during the relevant period. The later addition of aluminium scrap to the certificate was treated only as a mitigating factor and did not negate liability. Penalty was therefore upheld in principle, but the Tribunal reduced the quantum on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>