<?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>2013 (7) TMI 1041 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187423</link>
    <description>Duty-free inputs procured by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking under Chapter X remained recoverable from the recipient unit when they were clandestinely diverted into the domestic market, because the recipient was responsible for receipt, storage and utilisation and was liable where the goods were not duly accounted for under rule 196. The proviso to section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act applied to goods produced by an EOU and allowed for sale in India, so duty was to be computed by reference to the customs duties on like imported goods. Penalties on the company and participating individuals were sustained for deliberate diversion and forgery, with only one supplier director&#039;s penalty reduced on account of a limited role.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:22:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 1041 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187423</link>
      <description>Duty-free inputs procured by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking under Chapter X remained recoverable from the recipient unit when they were clandestinely diverted into the domestic market, because the recipient was responsible for receipt, storage and utilisation and was liable where the goods were not duly accounted for under rule 196. The proviso to section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act applied to goods produced by an EOU and allowed for sale in India, so duty was to be computed by reference to the customs duties on like imported goods. Penalties on the company and participating individuals were sustained for deliberate diversion and forgery, with only one supplier director&#039;s penalty reduced on account of a limited role.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>