<?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 (3) TMI 653 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113399</link>
    <description>Excise liability, confiscation and penalty depend on goods reaching a marketable excisable stage. Where Ald-C-14 required maturation before odour purity and marketability could be assessed, distillation alone did not establish manufacture of excisable goods; absence of an RG 1 entry at that stage could not by itself support confiscation or penalty. Production records and RG 1 entries require reconciliation to identify any actual unaccounted production before determining duty, interest and penalty under Section 11AC. As confiscation did not survive, connected penalties on the director and technical consultant under Rule 209A could not be sustained. The substantive duty and penalty assessment required fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 11:35:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 653 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113399</link>
      <description>Excise liability, confiscation and penalty depend on goods reaching a marketable excisable stage. Where Ald-C-14 required maturation before odour purity and marketability could be assessed, distillation alone did not establish manufacture of excisable goods; absence of an RG 1 entry at that stage could not by itself support confiscation or penalty. Production records and RG 1 entries require reconciliation to identify any actual unaccounted production before determining duty, interest and penalty under Section 11AC. As confiscation did not survive, connected penalties on the director and technical consultant under Rule 209A could not be sustained. The substantive duty and penalty assessment required fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>