<?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 (11) TMI 128 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52332</link>
    <description>Finished excisable cotton denim fabrics not entered in the statutory RG 1 register were liable to confiscation because daily recording of finished goods was mandatory; the authenticated loose register was only a mitigating factor, so the redemption fine was reduced. Goods cleared under seized invoices without duty attracted duty demand and penalty because the officials&#039; statements established duty-free clearance, though the penalty was reduced after prompt duty payment. Penalty on the Vice President was unsustainable because no material showed knowledge of the offending clearance or confiscability, and his presence at the market office, not the factory, negated the basis for personal liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:10:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 128 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52332</link>
      <description>Finished excisable cotton denim fabrics not entered in the statutory RG 1 register were liable to confiscation because daily recording of finished goods was mandatory; the authenticated loose register was only a mitigating factor, so the redemption fine was reduced. Goods cleared under seized invoices without duty attracted duty demand and penalty because the officials&#039; statements established duty-free clearance, though the penalty was reduced after prompt duty payment. Penalty on the Vice President was unsustainable because no material showed knowledge of the offending clearance or confiscability, and his presence at the market office, not the factory, negated the basis for personal liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>