<?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 (2) TMI 570 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119449</link>
    <description>Confiscation and penalty were found unsustainable where copper coils were recorded in statutory books, linked to duty-paid purchases, and supported by invoices and the proprietor&#039;s statement, with no evidence of clandestine removal or duty evasion; the absence of the specified sub-rule under Rule 173Q also rendered the action defective. A separate stock discrepancy case failed because the variation was only marginal, the stock was maintained by weight, and the explanation showed different categories of goods, with no allegation or proof of evasion; on that basis, confiscation and penalty, including the Section 11A demand-related penalty, were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:53:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 570 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119449</link>
      <description>Confiscation and penalty were found unsustainable where copper coils were recorded in statutory books, linked to duty-paid purchases, and supported by invoices and the proprietor&#039;s statement, with no evidence of clandestine removal or duty evasion; the absence of the specified sub-rule under Rule 173Q also rendered the action defective. A separate stock discrepancy case failed because the variation was only marginal, the stock was maintained by weight, and the explanation showed different categories of goods, with no allegation or proof of evasion; on that basis, confiscation and penalty, including the Section 11A demand-related penalty, were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>