<?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 (10) TMI 307 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87742</link>
    <description>A later clarificatory notification on processing cotton fabrics on a zero-zero finishing machine without a stenter attachment was treated as relating back to the original exemption notification. Since the goods had been removed after duty was paid voluntarily, the earlier conduct was regarded as falling within the clarified exemption, which undermined the basis for alleging removal without payment of duty. On that footing, confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:41:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 307 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87742</link>
      <description>A later clarificatory notification on processing cotton fabrics on a zero-zero finishing machine without a stenter attachment was treated as relating back to the original exemption notification. Since the goods had been removed after duty was paid voluntarily, the earlier conduct was regarded as falling within the clarified exemption, which undermined the basis for alleging removal without payment of duty. On that footing, confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>