<?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>1988 (11) TMI 156 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73617</link>
    <description>Duty on alleged process loss in an integrated manufacture of soda ash was held unsustainable because the department produced no independent evidence of wilful suppression or clandestine removal, and prior disclosure of the accounting practice negated concealment. The quantity reflected as loss in daily production reports could not be treated as dutiable merely on a notional basis where the goods remained within the same excisable tariff item. For the same reasons, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand beyond six months was time-barred. With the duty demand failing, the penalty had no foundation and was also set aside, with consequential refund directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:23:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 156 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73617</link>
      <description>Duty on alleged process loss in an integrated manufacture of soda ash was held unsustainable because the department produced no independent evidence of wilful suppression or clandestine removal, and prior disclosure of the accounting practice negated concealment. The quantity reflected as loss in daily production reports could not be treated as dutiable merely on a notional basis where the goods remained within the same excisable tariff item. For the same reasons, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand beyond six months was time-barred. With the duty demand failing, the penalty had no foundation and was also set aside, with consequential refund directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>