<?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 (10) TMI 636 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107335</link>
    <description>An SSI unit could not be subjected to confiscation, redemption fine or personal penalty where the show cause notice did not allege that it had crossed the exemption limit and the record showed maintenance of simplified accounts. The authority noted that absence of statutory registration or declaration, by itself, did not justify adverse action when the seized registers and documents reflected proper record-keeping and no discrepancy or excess clearance was proved. As the factual foundation for confiscation was not established, the basis for penalty under Rule 173Q also failed. The impugned confiscation, fine and penalty were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:38:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 636 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107335</link>
      <description>An SSI unit could not be subjected to confiscation, redemption fine or personal penalty where the show cause notice did not allege that it had crossed the exemption limit and the record showed maintenance of simplified accounts. The authority noted that absence of statutory registration or declaration, by itself, did not justify adverse action when the seized registers and documents reflected proper record-keeping and no discrepancy or excess clearance was proved. As the factual foundation for confiscation was not established, the basis for penalty under Rule 173Q also failed. The impugned confiscation, fine and penalty were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>