<?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 (6) TMI 71 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51284</link>
    <description>Clandestine cash collection evidenced by seized price lists, distributor records and witness statements can support a finding of suppressed assessable value, but only for the sales channel actually proved. The material here was sufficient for the Madhya Pradesh distributor route, so the duty demand was confined to that extent and not extended to other sales. The article also notes that fraud and suppression can justify excise penalties, that Section 11AC need not cover the entire period if penalty is otherwise sustainable under the applicable law, and that separate penalties on a firm and its partners are impermissible. Liability was retained against the participating distributors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:31:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 71 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51284</link>
      <description>Clandestine cash collection evidenced by seized price lists, distributor records and witness statements can support a finding of suppressed assessable value, but only for the sales channel actually proved. The material here was sufficient for the Madhya Pradesh distributor route, so the duty demand was confined to that extent and not extended to other sales. The article also notes that fraud and suppression can justify excise penalties, that Section 11AC need not cover the entire period if penalty is otherwise sustainable under the applicable law, and that separate penalties on a firm and its partners are impermissible. Liability was retained against the participating distributors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>