<?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 (2) TMI 302 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31017</link>
    <description>Duty on indigenous raw materials procured for a 100% EOU against forged CT-3 and re-warehousing certificates remained recoverable from the recipient EOU where the goods were not received for intended export manufacture or properly accounted for, so the duty demand was upheld in principle. Penalties on the supplying units and a connected officer were not sustained because the record did not show knowledge of the forgery or independent participation in the fraud, and the officer&#039;s penalty rested mainly on an unsupported co-accused statement. The demand and related penalties against the recipient EOU were remanded for de novo consideration and re-quantification under the correct legal provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2019 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 302 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31017</link>
      <description>Duty on indigenous raw materials procured for a 100% EOU against forged CT-3 and re-warehousing certificates remained recoverable from the recipient EOU where the goods were not received for intended export manufacture or properly accounted for, so the duty demand was upheld in principle. Penalties on the supplying units and a connected officer were not sustained because the record did not show knowledge of the forgery or independent participation in the fraud, and the officer&#039;s penalty rested mainly on an unsupported co-accused statement. The demand and related penalties against the recipient EOU were remanded for de novo consideration and re-quantification under the correct legal provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>