<?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>2003 (6) TMI 313 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107866</link>
    <description>Seized goods purchased from an SSI unit within the exemption limit could not be treated as confiscable goods of that unit where there was no evidence that the unit had manufactured branded goods or that branded goods were found in its premises. The sticker bearing the brand name was affixed only after purchase by the trader, so the goods were to be released to the trader and the direction to release them to the SSI unit on redemption fine was unsustainable. Penalty was also unsustainable because the department failed to prove any contravention of excise law or rules by either appellant. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:12:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 313 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107866</link>
      <description>Seized goods purchased from an SSI unit within the exemption limit could not be treated as confiscable goods of that unit where there was no evidence that the unit had manufactured branded goods or that branded goods were found in its premises. The sticker bearing the brand name was affixed only after purchase by the trader, so the goods were to be released to the trader and the direction to release them to the SSI unit on redemption fine was unsustainable. Penalty was also unsustainable because the department failed to prove any contravention of excise law or rules by either appellant. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>