<?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>2008 (1) TMI 276 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30242</link>
    <description>Under Notification No. 214/86, job work clearances made on the supplier&#039;s undertaking and through prescribed challans did not fasten duty on the job worker; the duty demand on moulds was set aside. Moulds removed under the statutory procedure were not treated as clandestinely removed goods, so confiscation was also set aside. Unaccounted finished goods found in the factory remained liable to confiscation because they were manufactured but not entered in statutory records, although the redemption fine was reduced. Penalties were correspondingly modified: the firm&#039;s penalty was substantially reduced and the partner&#039;s penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 276 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30242</link>
      <description>Under Notification No. 214/86, job work clearances made on the supplier&#039;s undertaking and through prescribed challans did not fasten duty on the job worker; the duty demand on moulds was set aside. Moulds removed under the statutory procedure were not treated as clandestinely removed goods, so confiscation was also set aside. Unaccounted finished goods found in the factory remained liable to confiscation because they were manufactured but not entered in statutory records, although the redemption fine was reduced. Penalties were correspondingly modified: the firm&#039;s penalty was substantially reduced and the partner&#039;s penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>