<?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 (5) TMI 43 - CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1608</link>
    <description>Duty-free yarn procured for a 100% EOU and diverted before reaching the unit was held outside the exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E., because the conditions of receipt, storage, accountal and use in export manufacture were not satisfied. On the evidence, the Tribunal found the re-warehousing certificates and challans to be ly obtained and held that duty liability attached to the consignee once delivery had been taken but the goods were not brought into the EOU, with interest payable. As to penalties, the absence of proved direct involvement justified setting aside the penalties on two directors, while the penalties on the company and the Executive Director were reduced as excessive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 43 - CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1608</link>
      <description>Duty-free yarn procured for a 100% EOU and diverted before reaching the unit was held outside the exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E., because the conditions of receipt, storage, accountal and use in export manufacture were not satisfied. On the evidence, the Tribunal found the re-warehousing certificates and challans to be ly obtained and held that duty liability attached to the consignee once delivery had been taken but the goods were not brought into the EOU, with interest payable. As to penalties, the absence of proved direct involvement justified setting aside the penalties on two directors, while the penalties on the company and the Executive Director were reduced as excessive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>