<?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>1992 (8) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82031</link>
    <description>A stay application on excise duty addressed whether a show cause notice specifically alleging manufacture, suppression, dummy units and wrongful small-scale exemption could justify a prima facie demand against a named assessee. The notice was treated as sufficiently detailed against M/s. Premier Electronics, so pre-deposit of duty and part of the penalty was directed. By contrast, where other units were not specifically alleged to be independent manufacturers and liability was not clearly fastened in the notice, pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived and recovery stayed. The result was a mixed interim arrangement, with partial deposit confined to the named firm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:53:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82031</link>
      <description>A stay application on excise duty addressed whether a show cause notice specifically alleging manufacture, suppression, dummy units and wrongful small-scale exemption could justify a prima facie demand against a named assessee. The notice was treated as sufficiently detailed against M/s. Premier Electronics, so pre-deposit of duty and part of the penalty was directed. By contrast, where other units were not specifically alleged to be independent manufacturers and liability was not clearly fastened in the notice, pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived and recovery stayed. The result was a mixed interim arrangement, with partial deposit confined to the named firm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>