<?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 (12) TMI 1084 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352815</link>
    <description>The case involved the confiscation of sugar stored in a non-duty paid godown without recording receipt in statutory records. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that confiscation was unwarranted as the goods were duty paid. The original authority&#039;s decision to impose penalties was overturned, including a personal penalty on the manager. The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Order-in-Appeal challenging findings on duty paid goods, confiscation, and penalties was dismissed. The Tribunal affirmed that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction over duty paid goods not manufactured by the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal and granting consequential relief to the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2019 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1084 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352815</link>
      <description>The case involved the confiscation of sugar stored in a non-duty paid godown without recording receipt in statutory records. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that confiscation was unwarranted as the goods were duty paid. The original authority&#039;s decision to impose penalties was overturned, including a personal penalty on the manager. The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Order-in-Appeal challenging findings on duty paid goods, confiscation, and penalties was dismissed. The Tribunal affirmed that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction over duty paid goods not manufactured by the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal and granting consequential relief to the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>