<?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 (10) TMI 4 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217049</link>
    <description>Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 authorises penalty on any person who acquires, possesses, or deals with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. On the stated facts, the purchaser company and its manager were found to have been aware that the supplier had crossed the exemption limit and that duty became payable thereafter; senior management correspondence also showed knowledge, and the supplier was later found fictitious. The absence of a separate finding of guilty mind did not help, because the rule is satisfied by knowledge or reason to believe. The penalty was therefore sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 4 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217049</link>
      <description>Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 authorises penalty on any person who acquires, possesses, or deals with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. On the stated facts, the purchaser company and its manager were found to have been aware that the supplier had crossed the exemption limit and that duty became payable thereafter; senior management correspondence also showed knowledge, and the supplier was later found fictitious. The absence of a separate finding of guilty mind did not help, because the rule is satisfied by knowledge or reason to believe. The penalty was therefore sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>