<?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 (12) TMI 219 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88238</link>
    <description>Where raw material shortage is admitted but the assessee manufactures multiple excisable products, duty cannot be computed on the assumption that the entire shortage related only to one product unless the actual production mix supports that inference; the demand was therefore directed to be recomputed on a broader production-ratio basis. The penalty was reduced as excessive, and confiscation of plant and machinery was set aside because the record did not justify such severe consequences for the established evasion. The exemption dispute under Notification No. 175/86 was remanded for de novo consideration because the related brand-name issue was pending in another proceeding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:19:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 219 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88238</link>
      <description>Where raw material shortage is admitted but the assessee manufactures multiple excisable products, duty cannot be computed on the assumption that the entire shortage related only to one product unless the actual production mix supports that inference; the demand was therefore directed to be recomputed on a broader production-ratio basis. The penalty was reduced as excessive, and confiscation of plant and machinery was set aside because the record did not justify such severe consequences for the established evasion. The exemption dispute under Notification No. 175/86 was remanded for de novo consideration because the related brand-name issue was pending in another proceeding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>