<?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 (8) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83288</link>
    <description>Notification No. 208/83-C.E. was applied to ship-breaking scrap used in re-rolled iron and steel products by treating the notification&#039;s input descriptions as controlling, rather than the scrap&#039;s origin, so material matching the tariff descriptions could qualify even after tariff headings 72.15 and 73.09 were inserted. The deeming fiction that domestic inputs were duty paid was rebutted where scrap was bought directly from ship-breakers or ship-breaking units, because such goods were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid; scrap bought from traders in the open market was treated as duty paid unless the Revenue proved otherwise. On limitation, extended time depended on misdeclaration or suppression, and the document notes that the issue required factual examination in one matter. Penalties turned on duty liability and proof of personal involvement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:29:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83288</link>
      <description>Notification No. 208/83-C.E. was applied to ship-breaking scrap used in re-rolled iron and steel products by treating the notification&#039;s input descriptions as controlling, rather than the scrap&#039;s origin, so material matching the tariff descriptions could qualify even after tariff headings 72.15 and 73.09 were inserted. The deeming fiction that domestic inputs were duty paid was rebutted where scrap was bought directly from ship-breakers or ship-breaking units, because such goods were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid; scrap bought from traders in the open market was treated as duty paid unless the Revenue proved otherwise. On limitation, extended time depended on misdeclaration or suppression, and the document notes that the issue required factual examination in one matter. Penalties turned on duty liability and proof of personal involvement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>