<?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 134 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52339</link>
    <description>Substantial quantities of textured yarn found outside the statutory RG 1 account supported an inference of intended clandestine removal, because the explanations were inconsistent, unsupported and inconsistent with normal production. On those facts, confiscation of the unentered goods was sustained under the Central Excise Rules, including the control provisions governing goods not entered in prescribed accounts. A separate explanation based on anti-static oil was rejected for want of reliable consumption records and a coherent accounting trail, but the penalty was moderated because the weight attributable to oil and the duty implications warranted reduction on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:23:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 134 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52339</link>
      <description>Substantial quantities of textured yarn found outside the statutory RG 1 account supported an inference of intended clandestine removal, because the explanations were inconsistent, unsupported and inconsistent with normal production. On those facts, confiscation of the unentered goods was sustained under the Central Excise Rules, including the control provisions governing goods not entered in prescribed accounts. A separate explanation based on anti-static oil was rejected for want of reliable consumption records and a coherent accounting trail, but the penalty was moderated because the weight attributable to oil and the duty implications warranted reduction on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>