<?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 (7) TMI 60 -  CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2196</link>
    <description>Confiscation of excisable goods and penalty under the Central Excise Rules were held unsustainable where the goods were found inside the factory and there was no reliable proof of clandestine removal. The Revenue did not verify the explanation that the goods were under reconditioning, and there was no material showing that they were removed or about to be removed clandestinely. On these facts, the order-in-original was set aside, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 60 -  CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2196</link>
      <description>Confiscation of excisable goods and penalty under the Central Excise Rules were held unsustainable where the goods were found inside the factory and there was no reliable proof of clandestine removal. The Revenue did not verify the explanation that the goods were under reconditioning, and there was no material showing that they were removed or about to be removed clandestinely. On these facts, the order-in-original was set aside, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>