<?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>2017 (7) TMI 53 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344941</link>
    <description>Finished goods found in factory premises were treated as not yet attracting duty at seizure stage, so confiscation was not fully disturbed, but the redemption fine was aligned with the duty involved and the penalty was cut as excessive. For 858 MCBs, the department failed to prove manufacture by the assessee or clearances without duty, and the third-party branded goods could not be sustained on the record; confiscation, redemption fine, duty and interest were set aside. Goods found at M/s Aarkaylite Electricals required fresh adjudication because the invoices and supporting documents were not examined. The penalty on a part-time records employee was reduced in view of his limited role.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 10:05:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=478518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 53 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344941</link>
      <description>Finished goods found in factory premises were treated as not yet attracting duty at seizure stage, so confiscation was not fully disturbed, but the redemption fine was aligned with the duty involved and the penalty was cut as excessive. For 858 MCBs, the department failed to prove manufacture by the assessee or clearances without duty, and the third-party branded goods could not be sustained on the record; confiscation, redemption fine, duty and interest were set aside. Goods found at M/s Aarkaylite Electricals required fresh adjudication because the invoices and supporting documents were not examined. The penalty on a part-time records employee was reduced in view of his limited role.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>