<?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 (10) TMI 494 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114886</link>
    <description>Clearances from a bonded unit in KFTZ were analysed as subject to the Central Excise Act and Rules, with Customs Act invocation noted in the adjudication framework. The text explains that removal of goods as declared rubber scrap, when testing showed plastic scrap, amounted to misdeclaration and supported classification under Chapter 39 and departmental valuation based on tangible data where no reliable domestic comparable value was produced. It also discusses confiscation of the goods and conveyance, and the application of penalty provisions for unauthorised clearance, while rejecting the challenge to sampling and testing because the lot was homogeneous, retesting was consistent, and no process defect was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 18:36:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 494 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114886</link>
      <description>Clearances from a bonded unit in KFTZ were analysed as subject to the Central Excise Act and Rules, with Customs Act invocation noted in the adjudication framework. The text explains that removal of goods as declared rubber scrap, when testing showed plastic scrap, amounted to misdeclaration and supported classification under Chapter 39 and departmental valuation based on tangible data where no reliable domestic comparable value was produced. It also discusses confiscation of the goods and conveyance, and the application of penalty provisions for unauthorised clearance, while rejecting the challenge to sampling and testing because the lot was homogeneous, retesting was consistent, and no process defect was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>