<?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 (9) TMI 704 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347947</link>
    <description>Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applies only where a person physically acquires, transports, removes, keeps, conceals, sells, purchases, or otherwise deals with excisable goods with knowledge or reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. The governing interpretation requires actual dealing with the goods themselves, not merely collateral misconduct. On the stated facts, the allegation was misuse of blank gate passbooks to issue fake or forged gate passes, rather than physical handling of excisable goods. The penalty therefore could not be sustained because the statutory condition for invoking Rule 209A was not met.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:56:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 704 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347947</link>
      <description>Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applies only where a person physically acquires, transports, removes, keeps, conceals, sells, purchases, or otherwise deals with excisable goods with knowledge or reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. The governing interpretation requires actual dealing with the goods themselves, not merely collateral misconduct. On the stated facts, the allegation was misuse of blank gate passbooks to issue fake or forged gate passes, rather than physical handling of excisable goods. The penalty therefore could not be sustained because the statutory condition for invoking Rule 209A was not met.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347947</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>