<?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 (3) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51696</link>
    <description>Where polyethylene films were treated as exempt from duty under Notification No. 208/84 issued under Section 11C, the basis for alleging duty evasion disappeared. On that footing, confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q could not be sustained because no independent reason was recorded to justify either consequence once duty was held not payable. The confiscation and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:44:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51696</link>
      <description>Where polyethylene films were treated as exempt from duty under Notification No. 208/84 issued under Section 11C, the basis for alleging duty evasion disappeared. On that footing, confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q could not be sustained because no independent reason was recorded to justify either consequence once duty was held not payable. The confiscation and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>