<?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 (3) TMI 537 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115112</link>
    <description>Confiscation of cigarette tissue paper, filter tip paper, filter rods and other packing materials was held unsustainable because, on the date of search, only cut tobacco had been notified as the principal raw material requiring stock records. The later Trade Notice and circulars extending the record-keeping regime to the other materials were issued after the seizure and could not be applied retrospectively. In the absence of any contemporaneous notice or circular in force on the relevant date, the alleged discrepancy in those materials did not justify confiscation under the cited Central Excise Rules, and the penalty was also set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 18:13:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 537 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115112</link>
      <description>Confiscation of cigarette tissue paper, filter tip paper, filter rods and other packing materials was held unsustainable because, on the date of search, only cut tobacco had been notified as the principal raw material requiring stock records. The later Trade Notice and circulars extending the record-keeping regime to the other materials were issued after the seizure and could not be applied retrospectively. In the absence of any contemporaneous notice or circular in force on the relevant date, the alleged discrepancy in those materials did not justify confiscation under the cited Central Excise Rules, and the penalty was also set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>