<?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>1987 (1) TMI 361 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74849</link>
    <description>Axle cuttings and punches, and end cuttings of sheets, were treated as substantially falling within the exempt category of fresh unused steel melting scrap commonly known as butts and shorts under Notification No. 150/77-C.E.; side cuttings of sheets were not shown to qualify, and the department failed to establish their separate quantity. The alleged short levy was also held not to rest on deliberate misdeclaration, because the goods were disclosed in gate passes and AR-3As, an earlier appellate order had accepted the assessee&#039;s classification, and the penalty was inconsistent with suppression. The longer limitation period was therefore unavailable and the demand was time barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:15:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 361 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74849</link>
      <description>Axle cuttings and punches, and end cuttings of sheets, were treated as substantially falling within the exempt category of fresh unused steel melting scrap commonly known as butts and shorts under Notification No. 150/77-C.E.; side cuttings of sheets were not shown to qualify, and the department failed to establish their separate quantity. The alleged short levy was also held not to rest on deliberate misdeclaration, because the goods were disclosed in gate passes and AR-3As, an earlier appellate order had accepted the assessee&#039;s classification, and the penalty was inconsistent with suppression. The longer limitation period was therefore unavailable and the demand was time barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>