<?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 (11) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87842</link>
    <description>An exemption notification was applied by reference to its own thickness definition: stainless steel sheets measuring 1.5 mm fell within the concessional entry for sheets of not less than 1.5 mm, so denial of exemption was not justified. On the weight issue, the declared and actual gross weights were examined, duty was assessed on the actual weight, and no show cause notice or separate basis for confiscation or penalty was shown; the weight discrepancy therefore did not warrant interference. The commentary states that where the notification itself defines the criterion, the goods must be tested against that definition, and an assessed and paid weight variation does not by itself support penal action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:39:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87842</link>
      <description>An exemption notification was applied by reference to its own thickness definition: stainless steel sheets measuring 1.5 mm fell within the concessional entry for sheets of not less than 1.5 mm, so denial of exemption was not justified. On the weight issue, the declared and actual gross weights were examined, duty was assessed on the actual weight, and no show cause notice or separate basis for confiscation or penalty was shown; the weight discrepancy therefore did not warrant interference. The commentary states that where the notification itself defines the criterion, the goods must be tested against that definition, and an assessed and paid weight variation does not by itself support penal action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>