<?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>2004 (1) TMI 537 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111883</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires evidence linking the person to the offending goods and proof of the requisite knowledge or mens rea. On the available record, the transporter had booked the goods in the ordinary course of business, and there was no evidence that he knew they were non-duty paid or liable to confiscation. The absence of such proof meant penal liability could not be fastened, and the penalty was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:53:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 537 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111883</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires evidence linking the person to the offending goods and proof of the requisite knowledge or mens rea. On the available record, the transporter had booked the goods in the ordinary course of business, and there was no evidence that he knew they were non-duty paid or liable to confiscation. The absence of such proof meant penal liability could not be fastened, and the penalty was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>