<?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>2000 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50115</link>
    <description>Excisable goods found in factory premises but not entered in the RG-I register were treated as unaccounted stock and were liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Rules. The rules required daily accounting of manufactured goods, and confiscation was attracted where excisable goods were not accounted for or the prescribed particulars were not entered. The contention that the goods were unfinished was rejected on the facts, and decisions cited by the assessee were distinguished because they concerned goods not yet at the RG-I stage or not shown to be fully manufactured. Confiscation was therefore upheld, subject to redemption on payment of fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:45:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50115</link>
      <description>Excisable goods found in factory premises but not entered in the RG-I register were treated as unaccounted stock and were liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Rules. The rules required daily accounting of manufactured goods, and confiscation was attracted where excisable goods were not accounted for or the prescribed particulars were not entered. The contention that the goods were unfinished was rejected on the facts, and decisions cited by the assessee were distinguished because they concerned goods not yet at the RG-I stage or not shown to be fully manufactured. Confiscation was therefore upheld, subject to redemption on payment of fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>