<?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>2015 (9) TMI 347 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263679</link>
    <description>Goods returned by the buyer were treated as genuine, where the challan recorded the return before inspection, the quantity matched the stock found, and the return had been intimated to and accepted by the department. On those facts, no material showed that the goods were in fact unreturned or unaccounted. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the stock was not liable to confiscation, redemption fine or penalty was upheld, and the department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 347 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263679</link>
      <description>Goods returned by the buyer were treated as genuine, where the challan recorded the return before inspection, the quantity matched the stock found, and the return had been intimated to and accepted by the department. On those facts, no material showed that the goods were in fact unreturned or unaccounted. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the stock was not liable to confiscation, redemption fine or penalty was upheld, and the department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>