<?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>2001 (6) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50974</link>
    <description>Non-entry of manufactured goods in the RG-1 statutory register was treated as a serious violation, not a mere technical lapse, because proper accounting of manufactured goods is a fundamental control linked to duty payment and prevention of evasion. The explanation for the omission was found unsatisfactory, so confiscation was upheld. The same reasoning supported retention of the redemption fine and penalty, and no reduction was granted in the quantum fixed by the lower authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:54:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50974</link>
      <description>Non-entry of manufactured goods in the RG-1 statutory register was treated as a serious violation, not a mere technical lapse, because proper accounting of manufactured goods is a fundamental control linked to duty payment and prevention of evasion. The explanation for the omission was found unsatisfactory, so confiscation was upheld. The same reasoning supported retention of the redemption fine and penalty, and no reduction was granted in the quantum fixed by the lower authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>