<?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>1972 (10) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45658</link>
    <description>Under the Central Excise Rules, a bona fide purchaser of excisable goods cannot be penalised or have the goods confiscated for defects in the gate pass or labelling where those obligations rested on the manufacturer under the self-removal procedure. The purchaser had no role in preparing the gate pass or affixing labels, and the department had already proceeded against the manufacturer for the irregularity. Because the provisions are quasi-penal, the alleged offence had to be strictly proved against the person proceeded against; no independent offence by the purchaser was established. The confiscation and penalty against the purchaser were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:02:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (10) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45658</link>
      <description>Under the Central Excise Rules, a bona fide purchaser of excisable goods cannot be penalised or have the goods confiscated for defects in the gate pass or labelling where those obligations rested on the manufacturer under the self-removal procedure. The purchaser had no role in preparing the gate pass or affixing labels, and the department had already proceeded against the manufacturer for the irregularity. Because the provisions are quasi-penal, the alleged offence had to be strictly proved against the person proceeded against; no independent offence by the purchaser was established. The confiscation and penalty against the purchaser were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>