<?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>2012 (9) TMI 739 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216931</link>
    <description>The Government upheld the duty demand and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority in a case involving shortages of excisable goods. The applicants&#039; arguments for condoning losses due to natural causes were dismissed, as were their references to previous judgments and circulars. The claim for adjusting excess quantities against shortages was rejected. The revision application was deemed devoid of merit, affirming the decision that the shortages could not be condoned, and the duty liability was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 739 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216931</link>
      <description>The Government upheld the duty demand and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority in a case involving shortages of excisable goods. The applicants&#039; arguments for condoning losses due to natural causes were dismissed, as were their references to previous judgments and circulars. The claim for adjusting excess quantities against shortages was rejected. The revision application was deemed devoid of merit, affirming the decision that the shortages could not be condoned, and the duty liability was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>