<?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 (8) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51803</link>
    <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by cogent, tangible evidence; a notional duty demand based on an unproved understanding with a manufacturers&#039; association was unsustainable, so the demand and related equal penalty were set aside. Confiscation of 9 pouching machines also failed because actual use of the machines was not established, and confiscation of cash was unjustified since there was no reliable proof that it represented sale proceeds of smuggled goods within the relevant customs provision. The penalties on the proprietors were set aside as unnecessary where the firms had already been penalised, while the landlord&#039;s penalty was reduced and the accountant&#039;s penalty sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:49:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51803</link>
      <description>Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by cogent, tangible evidence; a notional duty demand based on an unproved understanding with a manufacturers&#039; association was unsustainable, so the demand and related equal penalty were set aside. Confiscation of 9 pouching machines also failed because actual use of the machines was not established, and confiscation of cash was unjustified since there was no reliable proof that it represented sale proceeds of smuggled goods within the relevant customs provision. The penalties on the proprietors were set aside as unnecessary where the firms had already been penalised, while the landlord&#039;s penalty was reduced and the accountant&#039;s penalty sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>