<?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 (7) TMI 189 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52119</link>
    <description>Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were held unwarranted for a 100% export oriented unit because the goods remained in the factory for export, the unit was not required to maintain RG-I under the applicable Board circular, and no element of duty evasion arose. The intermediate product had already been subjected to duty and the duty was accepted and paid, so the basis for penal action was absent. The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore rightly set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:24:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 189 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52119</link>
      <description>Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were held unwarranted for a 100% export oriented unit because the goods remained in the factory for export, the unit was not required to maintain RG-I under the applicable Board circular, and no element of duty evasion arose. The intermediate product had already been subjected to duty and the duty was accepted and paid, so the basis for penal action was absent. The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore rightly set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>