<?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 (10) TMI 518 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111606</link>
    <description>Unaccounted goods found in the factory, not reflected in the prescribed records and without dispute on that factual position, were treated as liable to confiscation. The assessee was also held liable to penalty, and the penalty under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was upheld. However, the quantum of both the penalty and the redemption fine was considered excessive on the facts, so both were scaled down in the interest of justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 518 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111606</link>
      <description>Unaccounted goods found in the factory, not reflected in the prescribed records and without dispute on that factual position, were treated as liable to confiscation. The assessee was also held liable to penalty, and the penalty under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was upheld. However, the quantum of both the penalty and the redemption fine was considered excessive on the facts, so both were scaled down in the interest of justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>