<?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 (10) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89619</link>
    <description>Refractory containers/setters captively used in manufacturing ceramic products were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 221/86 because they fell within the notified Chapter 69 description and were used in producing final ceramic goods, so the duty demand on that basis could not survive. The demand for the period August 1986 to 7 February 1991 was also held time-barred, as the assessee had disclosed manufacture and captive use in approved classification lists and suppression was not established. With the demand unsustainable on exemption and limitation, the penalty was also held not maintainable, and the duty and penalty order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:59:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89619</link>
      <description>Refractory containers/setters captively used in manufacturing ceramic products were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 221/86 because they fell within the notified Chapter 69 description and were used in producing final ceramic goods, so the duty demand on that basis could not survive. The demand for the period August 1986 to 7 February 1991 was also held time-barred, as the assessee had disclosed manufacture and captive use in approved classification lists and suppression was not established. With the demand unsustainable on exemption and limitation, the penalty was also held not maintainable, and the duty and penalty order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>