<?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 (8) TMI 80 - CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1205</link>
    <description>Confiscation is generally unwarranted where goods are found in the factory, duty has already been paid, and the lapse is limited to non-entry in the RG-1 register; in such cases, only a reduced penalty may be appropriate. Modvat credit may be denied where goods are received under documents not directly consigned to the assessee and the relevant invoices were not produced before the lower authority, but absence of culpable conduct may justify deletion of penalty. Minor errors in RG-23A Part I, such as citing the invoice instead of the bill of entry, and immaterial discrepancies in input description do not by themselves justify denial of credit when receipt and actual use in manufacture are established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 80 - CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1205</link>
      <description>Confiscation is generally unwarranted where goods are found in the factory, duty has already been paid, and the lapse is limited to non-entry in the RG-1 register; in such cases, only a reduced penalty may be appropriate. Modvat credit may be denied where goods are received under documents not directly consigned to the assessee and the relevant invoices were not produced before the lower authority, but absence of culpable conduct may justify deletion of penalty. Minor errors in RG-23A Part I, such as citing the invoice instead of the bill of entry, and immaterial discrepancies in input description do not by themselves justify denial of credit when receipt and actual use in manufacture are established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>