<?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 (11) TMI 382 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110109</link>
    <description>Goods were not shown to be fully manufactured on the factual record and expert opinion, and there was no evidence of clandestine production or attempted removal without payment of duty. The dispute was limited to the stage at which entry in RG-I was required, and that accounting issue alone did not justify confiscation. Confiscation and penalty were therefore held unsustainable, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:32:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 382 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110109</link>
      <description>Goods were not shown to be fully manufactured on the factual record and expert opinion, and there was no evidence of clandestine production or attempted removal without payment of duty. The dispute was limited to the stage at which entry in RG-I was required, and that accounting issue alone did not justify confiscation. Confiscation and penalty were therefore held unsustainable, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>