<?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>1996 (2) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85034</link>
    <description>Rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits removal without payment of duty only in the limited situations specified by the rule, including use as raw materials or component parts for manufacture of excisable goods. Linned hemispheres received from a job worker and used as covers in the MUW plant did not satisfy that condition, and Notification No. 118/75-C.E. was held inapplicable because its own terms were not met; the duty exemption claim was rejected. On limitation, the record showed non-disclosure of material facts and incomplete accounting of the goods, so suppression was found and the demand was held within time; duty demand and penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:33:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85034</link>
      <description>Rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits removal without payment of duty only in the limited situations specified by the rule, including use as raw materials or component parts for manufacture of excisable goods. Linned hemispheres received from a job worker and used as covers in the MUW plant did not satisfy that condition, and Notification No. 118/75-C.E. was held inapplicable because its own terms were not met; the duty exemption claim was rejected. On limitation, the record showed non-disclosure of material facts and incomplete accounting of the goods, so suppression was found and the demand was held within time; duty demand and penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>