<?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>1991 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81404</link>
    <description>Fuel dispensing pumps driven by an electric motor powered by a rechargeable battery were treated as power-operated pumps and classifiable under Item 30-A of the Central Excise Tariff. Administrative letters and trade notices could not bind the quasi-judicial authority, which had to determine classification independently on the tariff wording. On limitation and penalty, the record indicated bona fide doubt over dutiability because of the prevailing departmental view, so wilful suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was not established. The extended period under Section 11A was therefore unavailable, the penalty was unsustainable, and recovery was confined to any short levy within the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:07:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81404</link>
      <description>Fuel dispensing pumps driven by an electric motor powered by a rechargeable battery were treated as power-operated pumps and classifiable under Item 30-A of the Central Excise Tariff. Administrative letters and trade notices could not bind the quasi-judicial authority, which had to determine classification independently on the tariff wording. On limitation and penalty, the record indicated bona fide doubt over dutiability because of the prevailing departmental view, so wilful suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was not established. The extended period under Section 11A was therefore unavailable, the penalty was unsustainable, and recovery was confined to any short levy within the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>