<?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 (7) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89797</link>
    <description>Private records showing exact production measurements supported a differential central excise duty demand on marble slabs and broken pieces, because the assessee had not maintained separate breakage records and the plea that the difference represented only broken pieces was rejected. The broken pieces were treated as excisable goods, although they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 16/90-C.E.; goods classifiable under sub-heading 2504.90 still had to be properly accounted for in statutory records. The duty demand was upheld, while the penalty was reduced on the ground that the original quantum was excessive in the circumstances, granting partial relief to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:25:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89797</link>
      <description>Private records showing exact production measurements supported a differential central excise duty demand on marble slabs and broken pieces, because the assessee had not maintained separate breakage records and the plea that the difference represented only broken pieces was rejected. The broken pieces were treated as excisable goods, although they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 16/90-C.E.; goods classifiable under sub-heading 2504.90 still had to be properly accounted for in statutory records. The duty demand was upheld, while the penalty was reduced on the ground that the original quantum was excessive in the circumstances, granting partial relief to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>