<?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 (9) TMI 648 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106878</link>
    <description>Amounts collected from buyers as representing excise duty, where the amount collected exceeded the duty deposited, are discussed as falling more appropriately under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act rather than Section 11A. The text notes that Section 11D was retrospectively amended from 12-5-2000 and that the lower authorities had not recorded findings under the correct provision. Confiscation of goods and penalty were left open for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:44:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 648 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106878</link>
      <description>Amounts collected from buyers as representing excise duty, where the amount collected exceeded the duty deposited, are discussed as falling more appropriately under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act rather than Section 11A. The text notes that Section 11D was retrospectively amended from 12-5-2000 and that the lower authorities had not recorded findings under the correct provision. Confiscation of goods and penalty were left open for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>