<?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>1999 (12) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93074</link>
    <description>Prima facie exemption as handicraft goods was not established for metallic yarn processed by cutting, slitting and winding through electrically operated machines, because the goods did not appear to show the visual appeal or artistic improvement ordinarily associated with handicrafts. The limitation objection did not justify unconditional relief at the stay stage, as the notice and adjudication order recorded allegations of suppression, misdeclaration and intent to evade duty, which were sufficient to support a prima facie demand and penalty. Complete waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay were therefore refused, with partial relief granted through a substantial pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the balance on compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:47:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93074</link>
      <description>Prima facie exemption as handicraft goods was not established for metallic yarn processed by cutting, slitting and winding through electrically operated machines, because the goods did not appear to show the visual appeal or artistic improvement ordinarily associated with handicrafts. The limitation objection did not justify unconditional relief at the stay stage, as the notice and adjudication order recorded allegations of suppression, misdeclaration and intent to evade duty, which were sufficient to support a prima facie demand and penalty. Complete waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay were therefore refused, with partial relief granted through a substantial pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the balance on compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>