<?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>1995 (5) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84196</link>
    <description>Tilting type wet grinders were stated not to fall within sub-heading 8509.00 because they were cleared without a self-contained electric motor and the tariff entry covered electro-mechanical domestic appliances with such motors. Clubbing of clearances for denial of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was held unjustified because the units had separate constitution, registrations, loans, tax and excise records, and ordinary commercial coordination did not prove dummy units or evasion. The demand was also treated as time-barred since the department already knew of the manufacture and clearances, so extended limitation could not rest on suppression. With classification, clubbing, and limitation failing, no penalty was leviable and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:52:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84196</link>
      <description>Tilting type wet grinders were stated not to fall within sub-heading 8509.00 because they were cleared without a self-contained electric motor and the tariff entry covered electro-mechanical domestic appliances with such motors. Clubbing of clearances for denial of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was held unjustified because the units had separate constitution, registrations, loans, tax and excise records, and ordinary commercial coordination did not prove dummy units or evasion. The demand was also treated as time-barred since the department already knew of the manufacture and clearances, so extended limitation could not rest on suppression. With classification, clubbing, and limitation failing, no penalty was leviable and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>