<?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 (10) TMI 233 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88473</link>
    <description>Extended limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked where the assessee had fully disclosed the manufacturing process, the supplier arrangement, and the handling of the returned C4 Raffinate stream; on the same facts earlier examined by the department, there was no suppression or misdeclaration, so the demand was time-barred. The exemption was also held to cover the entire quantity received because the input was used in the exempt manufacture and the returned stream was only an inevitable technological residue, not a diversion to an unapproved use. As the duty demand failed both on limitation and on merits, the penalty could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:59:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 233 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88473</link>
      <description>Extended limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked where the assessee had fully disclosed the manufacturing process, the supplier arrangement, and the handling of the returned C4 Raffinate stream; on the same facts earlier examined by the department, there was no suppression or misdeclaration, so the demand was time-barred. The exemption was also held to cover the entire quantity received because the input was used in the exempt manufacture and the returned stream was only an inevitable technological residue, not a diversion to an unapproved use. As the duty demand failed both on limitation and on merits, the penalty could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>