<?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>1998 (4) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88810</link>
    <description>A revolving screening plant fabricated for the assessee&#039;s own use was treated as excisable goods because marketability, not actual sale, is the controlling test, and the plant was found to be functional machinery capable of being sold. The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was available where the assessee had not disclosed the manufacture to the department and the notice alleged intent to evade duty. Exemption under Notification No. 201/79 was available for duty-paid inputs used in manufacture, and could not be denied merely for procedural non-compliance if entitlement was otherwise established, subject to proof of the duty-paid character of the inputs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:03:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88810</link>
      <description>A revolving screening plant fabricated for the assessee&#039;s own use was treated as excisable goods because marketability, not actual sale, is the controlling test, and the plant was found to be functional machinery capable of being sold. The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was available where the assessee had not disclosed the manufacture to the department and the notice alleged intent to evade duty. Exemption under Notification No. 201/79 was available for duty-paid inputs used in manufacture, and could not be denied merely for procedural non-compliance if entitlement was otherwise established, subject to proof of the duty-paid character of the inputs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>