<?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>2007 (3) TMI 472 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121232</link>
    <description>Unaccounted finished goods found in the factory premises were liable to confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(b) because their excess and non-accountal brought them within the rule&#039;s mischief, so the confiscation and related penalty were sustained. Identifiable duty-paid raw materials were not liable to confiscation where invoices showed duty-paid procurement, the Revenue produced no contrary evidence, and there was no basis such as Modvat credit to treat them as offending goods, so the confiscation and connected penalty were set aside. The partner&#039;s personal penalty was also set aside because there was no showing of day-to-day accounting involvement or intent to remove goods clandestinely.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:28:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 472 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121232</link>
      <description>Unaccounted finished goods found in the factory premises were liable to confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(b) because their excess and non-accountal brought them within the rule&#039;s mischief, so the confiscation and related penalty were sustained. Identifiable duty-paid raw materials were not liable to confiscation where invoices showed duty-paid procurement, the Revenue produced no contrary evidence, and there was no basis such as Modvat credit to treat them as offending goods, so the confiscation and connected penalty were set aside. The partner&#039;s personal penalty was also set aside because there was no showing of day-to-day accounting involvement or intent to remove goods clandestinely.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>