<?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>1983 (12) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41540</link>
    <description>Goods not properly entered in the statutory RG 23 records were treated as a breach of Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, the authorities were held competent to order confiscation and impose redemption fine because the goods were not duly accounted for in the prescribed records. The High Court found no reason to disturb the concurrent administrative conclusion on improper accounting, and the redemption fine together with the connected adverse order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:14:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41540</link>
      <description>Goods not properly entered in the statutory RG 23 records were treated as a breach of Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, the authorities were held competent to order confiscation and impose redemption fine because the goods were not duly accounted for in the prescribed records. The High Court found no reason to disturb the concurrent administrative conclusion on improper accounting, and the redemption fine together with the connected adverse order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>