<?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>2006 (2) TMI 174 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47604</link>
    <description>Confiscation of scrap found in factory premises was unsustainable because there was no factual finding that the scrap was intended to be removed outside the factory. The scrap was stated to be kept for recycling and reuse in further manufacture, so the necessary foundation for confiscation was absent; the consequential penalty also could not survive. The demand dispute on classification had already been dropped as time-barred, and the classification issue was left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 174 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47604</link>
      <description>Confiscation of scrap found in factory premises was unsustainable because there was no factual finding that the scrap was intended to be removed outside the factory. The scrap was stated to be kept for recycling and reuse in further manufacture, so the necessary foundation for confiscation was absent; the consequential penalty also could not survive. The demand dispute on classification had already been dropped as time-barred, and the classification issue was left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>