<?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 (2) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73843</link>
    <description>Caprolactum obtained from waste generated after emergence of nylon filament but before winding on cops was treated as waste arising during the manufacture of nylon yarn for exemption under Notification No. 56/85-CE, because the manufacturing process was regarded as continuing until the yarn was wound on cops and assessed on that basis. On that footing, the exemption applied to the assessee. Once the exemption was accepted, the related duty demand had no foundation and could not survive, and the penalty also fell away. The commentary further notes that a bona fide dispute and disclosure in the classification list supported rejection of penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:28:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73843</link>
      <description>Caprolactum obtained from waste generated after emergence of nylon filament but before winding on cops was treated as waste arising during the manufacture of nylon yarn for exemption under Notification No. 56/85-CE, because the manufacturing process was regarded as continuing until the yarn was wound on cops and assessed on that basis. On that footing, the exemption applied to the assessee. Once the exemption was accepted, the related duty demand had no foundation and could not survive, and the penalty also fell away. The commentary further notes that a bona fide dispute and disclosure in the classification list supported rejection of penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>