<?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 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84199</link>
    <description>Polyethylene and polypropylene films and sheets made from lay-flat tubings were treated as goods falling within the relevant tariff description and were found eligible for exemption under the applicable notifications and the Section 11C notification, because the department did not prove rigidity or other facts excluding them from the exempted class. The notices also failed to disclose adequate allegations or proof of suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty, and the record did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 11A. On those facts, the exemption applied and the duty demands were barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:00:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84199</link>
      <description>Polyethylene and polypropylene films and sheets made from lay-flat tubings were treated as goods falling within the relevant tariff description and were found eligible for exemption under the applicable notifications and the Section 11C notification, because the department did not prove rigidity or other facts excluding them from the exempted class. The notices also failed to disclose adequate allegations or proof of suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty, and the record did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 11A. On those facts, the exemption applied and the duty demands were barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>