<?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 (8) TMI 701 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106951</link>
    <description>Seized records, admissions and parallel invoice books can prove clandestine removal where goods are shown as duty-paid without actual duty payment, and the duty demand based on Annexures B and C was upheld on that footing. By contrast, where all challan copies were prepared simultaneously and the only defect was delayed duty entries in later copies, the material was insufficient to establish double clearance, so the demand for Annexure D was not sustained. The company&#039;s penalty was reduced in view of partial relief on duty, while the Managing Director&#039;s penalty was maintained because the conduct was found to have occurred with his knowledge and consent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:38:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 701 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106951</link>
      <description>Seized records, admissions and parallel invoice books can prove clandestine removal where goods are shown as duty-paid without actual duty payment, and the duty demand based on Annexures B and C was upheld on that footing. By contrast, where all challan copies were prepared simultaneously and the only defect was delayed duty entries in later copies, the material was insufficient to establish double clearance, so the demand for Annexure D was not sustained. The company&#039;s penalty was reduced in view of partial relief on duty, while the Managing Director&#039;s penalty was maintained because the conduct was found to have occurred with his knowledge and consent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>