<?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>1993 (6) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82628</link>
    <description>Conversion of ammonium nitrate melt into ammonium nitrate flakes was treated as manufacture because the processed goods had different physical characteristics and a distinct commercial identity; the challenge on that point failed. The extended period for demand based on alleged suppression and clandestine removal could not be sustained on the existing record because the assessee relied on private accounting records and a bona fide belief linked to exempt captive consumption, which had not been properly examined. The demand and penalty were therefore not finally upheld, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after verification of the disputed quantity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:20:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (6) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82628</link>
      <description>Conversion of ammonium nitrate melt into ammonium nitrate flakes was treated as manufacture because the processed goods had different physical characteristics and a distinct commercial identity; the challenge on that point failed. The extended period for demand based on alleged suppression and clandestine removal could not be sustained on the existing record because the assessee relied on private accounting records and a bona fide belief linked to exempt captive consumption, which had not been properly examined. The demand and penalty were therefore not finally upheld, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after verification of the disputed quantity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>