<?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>2005 (8) TMI 252 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54656</link>
    <description>Cigarettes drawn as factory samples for quality control testing and irretrievably destroyed during testing were held not liable to excise duty where the sample register and related accounts were duly maintained and the destruction was properly recorded. The prior Supreme Court principle that testing samples are generally dutiable was distinguished on the basis that duty is not payable on the quantity actually destroyed in the course of bona fide testing when the records support that position. As the Department had earlier verified and authenticated similar records, its failure to continue verification for the relevant period did not justify ignoring the accounts. The demands of duty, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:30:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 252 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54656</link>
      <description>Cigarettes drawn as factory samples for quality control testing and irretrievably destroyed during testing were held not liable to excise duty where the sample register and related accounts were duly maintained and the destruction was properly recorded. The prior Supreme Court principle that testing samples are generally dutiable was distinguished on the basis that duty is not payable on the quantity actually destroyed in the course of bona fide testing when the records support that position. As the Department had earlier verified and authenticated similar records, its failure to continue verification for the relevant period did not justify ignoring the accounts. The demands of duty, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>