https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78483 CESTAT Mumbai applied the exemption conditions under Notifications No. 5/98-C.E. and 5/99-C.E. and held that credit restrictions under the MODVAT scheme could defeat the exemption for cloth clips and related plastic components, while snap fasteners fell under the specific Heading 9606.10 rather than the general plastic entry and were therefore chargeable at nil duty. It also recognised cum-duty valuation and directed fresh examination of the MODVAT credit claim on re-quantification. The mosquito repellant issue was remanded for reconsideration. Clandestine clearances and suppression of facts sustained the extended limitation period and penalty under Section 11AC, while the partner's separate Rule 209A penalty was set aside and the firm's penalty issue remanded. en-us Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:22:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78483 CESTAT Mumbai applied the exemption conditions under Notifications No. 5/98-C.E. and 5/99-C.E. and held that credit restrictions under the MODVAT scheme could defeat the exemption for cloth clips and related plastic components, while snap fasteners fell under the specific Heading 9606.10 rather than the general plastic entry and were therefore chargeable at nil duty. It also recognised cum-duty valuation and directed fresh examination of the MODVAT credit claim on re-quantification. The mosquito repellant issue was remanded for reconsideration. Clandestine clearances and suppression of facts sustained the extended limitation period and penalty under Section 11AC, while the partner's separate Rule 209A penalty was set aside and the firm's penalty issue remanded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78483