<?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>2006 (5) TMI 269 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118235</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the dropping of show-cause proceedings by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The case involved unaccounted foreign-made fabric found in a 100% EOU premises. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings as the fabric was duly recorded by another concern. The Revenue argued for confiscation due to lack of importation documents, but the Tribunal found no evidence against the recorded goods. Since the other concern was not part of the proceedings, penal action was not warranted. The judgment underscores the importance of proper documentation and evidence in cases involving goods ownership and movement, particularly in EOU contexts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:23:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 269 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118235</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the dropping of show-cause proceedings by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The case involved unaccounted foreign-made fabric found in a 100% EOU premises. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings as the fabric was duly recorded by another concern. The Revenue argued for confiscation due to lack of importation documents, but the Tribunal found no evidence against the recorded goods. Since the other concern was not part of the proceedings, penal action was not warranted. The judgment underscores the importance of proper documentation and evidence in cases involving goods ownership and movement, particularly in EOU contexts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>