<?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>1974 (7) TMI 54 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40483</link>
    <description>Excisable goods removed without payment of duty and without the prescribed gate-pass remain liable to confiscation even when found with a third-party purchaser, because the confiscatory consequence attaches to the goods themselves. The commentary also notes that seizure and confiscation could be supported through the customs confiscation machinery applied by notification under the Central Excises and Salt Act, rather than resting on excise rules alone. It further states that jurisdiction to enquire lay with the authority connected to the place of manufacture, since the excise infringement occurred there and not merely where the goods were physically seized.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 16:42:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (7) TMI 54 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40483</link>
      <description>Excisable goods removed without payment of duty and without the prescribed gate-pass remain liable to confiscation even when found with a third-party purchaser, because the confiscatory consequence attaches to the goods themselves. The commentary also notes that seizure and confiscation could be supported through the customs confiscation machinery applied by notification under the Central Excises and Salt Act, rather than resting on excise rules alone. It further states that jurisdiction to enquire lay with the authority connected to the place of manufacture, since the excise infringement occurred there and not merely where the goods were physically seized.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>