<?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>2002 (2) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51138</link>
    <description>Unretracted admissions by the authorised signatory, director and clerk established that processed fabrics were received, processed and removed outside statutory records without payment of duty, so the duty demand was supportable. Where clandestine removal is proved and no bona fide explanation is shown, the statutory penalty under Section 11AC need not be reduced and may be applied in full. The impugned order was sustained in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:04:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51138</link>
      <description>Unretracted admissions by the authorised signatory, director and clerk established that processed fabrics were received, processed and removed outside statutory records without payment of duty, so the duty demand was supportable. Where clandestine removal is proved and no bona fide explanation is shown, the statutory penalty under Section 11AC need not be reduced and may be applied in full. The impugned order was sustained in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>