<?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 (12) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87685</link>
    <description>A demand cannot be sustained on a ground not alleged in the show cause notice; the adjudicating authority changed the basis of demand from loss of duty-paid character to use of inputs outside the specified chapters, so that part failed. Exemption under Notification No. 269/86 was not confined to products made exclusively from specified inputs, and the use of some non-specified materials did not by itself defeat eligibility, so the exemption was upheld. The extended period of limitation was unavailable because the classification list and Modvat declaration disclosed the relevant input use, so suppression was not established. Duty and penalty were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:13:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87685</link>
      <description>A demand cannot be sustained on a ground not alleged in the show cause notice; the adjudicating authority changed the basis of demand from loss of duty-paid character to use of inputs outside the specified chapters, so that part failed. Exemption under Notification No. 269/86 was not confined to products made exclusively from specified inputs, and the use of some non-specified materials did not by itself defeat eligibility, so the exemption was upheld. The extended period of limitation was unavailable because the classification list and Modvat declaration disclosed the relevant input use, so suppression was not established. Duty and penalty were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>