<?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 (11) TMI 376 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120198</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal of excisable goods was established through seized challans, notebooks and corroborated admissions, as the documents contained matching particulars and the partner&#039;s statement was supported by merchant-manufacturers&#039; statements; the delayed retraction was ineffective, so the duty demand was upheld. Confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was found unwarranted and set aside, with the redemption fine also set aside. The penalty on the main appellant and the partner was reduced, while modest penalties on the other appellants were sustained because their admitted role in sending grey fabrics under kachcha challans and receiving processed fabrics without duty payment brought them within Rule 209A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 376 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120198</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal of excisable goods was established through seized challans, notebooks and corroborated admissions, as the documents contained matching particulars and the partner&#039;s statement was supported by merchant-manufacturers&#039; statements; the delayed retraction was ineffective, so the duty demand was upheld. Confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was found unwarranted and set aside, with the redemption fine also set aside. The penalty on the main appellant and the partner was reduced, while modest penalties on the other appellants were sustained because their admitted role in sending grey fabrics under kachcha challans and receiving processed fabrics without duty payment brought them within Rule 209A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>