<?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 (5) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87169</link>
    <description>Products added to existing engine oil, gear oil or differential lubricant as functional PTFE-based additives were classifiable as prepared additives for mineral oils, not as lubricating oils, so the exemption for blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases was unavailable. Engine coolant was held to fall outside the assessee&#039;s declarations, and invocation of the extended limitation period was sustained; the SSI exemption issue linked to use of a registered brand name required fresh consideration and was remanded. Cash security appropriation relating to confiscation could not stand where valuation had to be redone, so it was set aside, and the penalty was reduced in view of partial sustainment of the demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:10:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87169</link>
      <description>Products added to existing engine oil, gear oil or differential lubricant as functional PTFE-based additives were classifiable as prepared additives for mineral oils, not as lubricating oils, so the exemption for blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases was unavailable. Engine coolant was held to fall outside the assessee&#039;s declarations, and invocation of the extended limitation period was sustained; the SSI exemption issue linked to use of a registered brand name required fresh consideration and was remanded. Cash security appropriation relating to confiscation could not stand where valuation had to be redone, so it was set aside, and the penalty was reduced in view of partial sustainment of the demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>