<?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>2005 (1) TMI 456 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114935</link>
    <description>In alleged clandestine removal matters, duty demand may be confirmed where the record does not rebut the allegation and the explanation offered is found unsatisfactory. Penalties may also be sustained against the assessee firm and its director where the gravity of the contravention is established and the director is able for day-to-day operations and the resulting lapses. Here, the duty liability and penalties were upheld, and the appeals were rejected on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 14:28:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 456 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114935</link>
      <description>In alleged clandestine removal matters, duty demand may be confirmed where the record does not rebut the allegation and the explanation offered is found unsatisfactory. Penalties may also be sustained against the assessee firm and its director where the gravity of the contravention is established and the director is able for day-to-day operations and the resulting lapses. Here, the duty liability and penalties were upheld, and the appeals were rejected on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>