<?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>1975 (10) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH,</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40628</link>
    <description>Rule 32 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed transport of duty-paid tobacco between licensed wholesale dealers under a sale-note containing prescribed particulars. The Court noted that the sale-notes relied on by the assessee carried the relevant details, including description, weight, duty particulars, and the names and licence numbers of the parties. The department&#039;s case rested on an alleged mismatch in description and on documents said to concern the consignor, but those documents were not produced and the consignor was not examined. On that incomplete and unproved factual basis, breach of Rule 32 was not satisfactorily established, and the penalty and duty demand were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 11:49:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (10) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH,</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40628</link>
      <description>Rule 32 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed transport of duty-paid tobacco between licensed wholesale dealers under a sale-note containing prescribed particulars. The Court noted that the sale-notes relied on by the assessee carried the relevant details, including description, weight, duty particulars, and the names and licence numbers of the parties. The department&#039;s case rested on an alleged mismatch in description and on documents said to concern the consignor, but those documents were not produced and the consignor was not examined. On that incomplete and unproved factual basis, breach of Rule 32 was not satisfactorily established, and the penalty and duty demand were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>