<?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>2003 (3) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51862</link>
    <description>Complete manufactured goods in a factory had to be entered in the RG-1 register on manufacture. Marking them only as &quot;H&quot; or &quot;R&quot; and deferring entry until quality control testing was impermissible, because the goods were otherwise marketable and the testing step was only subsequent. Their presence within the factory did not prevent treatment as unaccounted goods, so confiscation and penalty were upheld against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:58:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51862</link>
      <description>Complete manufactured goods in a factory had to be entered in the RG-1 register on manufacture. Marking them only as &quot;H&quot; or &quot;R&quot; and deferring entry until quality control testing was impermissible, because the goods were otherwise marketable and the testing step was only subsequent. Their presence within the factory did not prevent treatment as unaccounted goods, so confiscation and penalty were upheld against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>