<?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>1978 (8) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45657</link>
    <description>Rule 221 of the Central Excise Rules makes both the corporate body and the person signing the declaration liable for duties, penalties and confiscations arising from the business, so the signatory&#039;s personal liability continues even if the corporation&#039;s penalty is later set aside. Concurrent factual findings that excisable goods were removed in breach of the prescribed excise requirements will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction where they rest on evidence and no violation of natural justice or procedural illegality is shown. On those principles, the petitioner&#039;s challenge to the penalty and the finding of contravention could not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:00:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (8) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45657</link>
      <description>Rule 221 of the Central Excise Rules makes both the corporate body and the person signing the declaration liable for duties, penalties and confiscations arising from the business, so the signatory&#039;s personal liability continues even if the corporation&#039;s penalty is later set aside. Concurrent factual findings that excisable goods were removed in breach of the prescribed excise requirements will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction where they rest on evidence and no violation of natural justice or procedural illegality is shown. On those principles, the petitioner&#039;s challenge to the penalty and the finding of contravention could not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>