<?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>1997 (1) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86324</link>
    <description>CEGAT, Madras took a prima facie view that winding yarn from hank to cone amounted to manufacture for central excise purposes, and that the relevant exemption notifications had to be read together, with the later notification excluding benefit where sewing thread came into existence. On that basis, it found no strong prima facie case against the duty demand or the accompanying penalty orders, and also noted that the record did not show absence of evidence on manufacture or on use of invoices in the names of other concerns. Although financial hardship was pleaded, the applicants were treated as profit-making with sundry debtors and stock in trade, so full waiver of pre-deposit was refused and only partial waiver was allowed, subject to specified deposits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:56:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86324</link>
      <description>CEGAT, Madras took a prima facie view that winding yarn from hank to cone amounted to manufacture for central excise purposes, and that the relevant exemption notifications had to be read together, with the later notification excluding benefit where sewing thread came into existence. On that basis, it found no strong prima facie case against the duty demand or the accompanying penalty orders, and also noted that the record did not show absence of evidence on manufacture or on use of invoices in the names of other concerns. Although financial hardship was pleaded, the applicants were treated as profit-making with sundry debtors and stock in trade, so full waiver of pre-deposit was refused and only partial waiver was allowed, subject to specified deposits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>