<?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 405 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110353</link>
    <description>Mere non-entry of manufactured goods in the RG 1 register, without proof of intent to evade duty or removal of the goods from the factory, does not attract the stricter penal provision under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The omission may still amount to a procedural contravention justifying confiscation and a limited penalty under Rule 226. On the facts found, the goods were liable to confiscation, but only the lesser penalty under Rule 226 was sustainable; the harsher penalty under Rule 173Q was not.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:13:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 405 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110353</link>
      <description>Mere non-entry of manufactured goods in the RG 1 register, without proof of intent to evade duty or removal of the goods from the factory, does not attract the stricter penal provision under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The omission may still amount to a procedural contravention justifying confiscation and a limited penalty under Rule 226. On the facts found, the goods were liable to confiscation, but only the lesser penalty under Rule 226 was sustainable; the harsher penalty under Rule 173Q was not.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>