<?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 385 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119691</link>
    <description>Colour picture tubes returned by television manufacturers for repair were claimed to fall under the repair procedure rather than be treated as clandestinely manufactured goods. The note states that contemporaneous records such as D-3 declarations, repair registers, sender invoices and despatch invoices were sufficient to show receipt for repair under Rule 173H. Because serial numbers were not available from the original clearance stage, serial number-wise correlation could not reasonably be insisted upon. In the absence of contrary evidence, clandestine manufacture was not presumed and the excise demand and confiscation were said to be unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:45:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 385 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119691</link>
      <description>Colour picture tubes returned by television manufacturers for repair were claimed to fall under the repair procedure rather than be treated as clandestinely manufactured goods. The note states that contemporaneous records such as D-3 declarations, repair registers, sender invoices and despatch invoices were sufficient to show receipt for repair under Rule 173H. Because serial numbers were not available from the original clearance stage, serial number-wise correlation could not reasonably be insisted upon. In the absence of contrary evidence, clandestine manufacture was not presumed and the excise demand and confiscation were said to be unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>