<?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>1993 (11) TMI 76 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49171</link>
    <description>Repeated unavailed hearing opportunities satisfy natural justice; an ex parte departmental decision is not invalid merely because the affected party did not respond despite adequate notice. Clandestine manufacture and removal of pilfer proof caps were supported by a partner&#039;s admissions, documentary records, common premises and partners, unexplained local purchases, fabricated records, and unreported installation and use of a power press contrary to the Central Excise Rules. Confiscation, redemption fine, and duty liability therefore remained sustained. Personal penalty was reduced because the quantity underlying its calculation had been double counted, making the original penalty excessive; relief was confined to that reduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:11:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 76 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49171</link>
      <description>Repeated unavailed hearing opportunities satisfy natural justice; an ex parte departmental decision is not invalid merely because the affected party did not respond despite adequate notice. Clandestine manufacture and removal of pilfer proof caps were supported by a partner&#039;s admissions, documentary records, common premises and partners, unexplained local purchases, fabricated records, and unreported installation and use of a power press contrary to the Central Excise Rules. Confiscation, redemption fine, and duty liability therefore remained sustained. Personal penalty was reduced because the quantity underlying its calculation had been double counted, making the original penalty excessive; relief was confined to that reduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>