<?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>2000 (5) TMI 378 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93701</link>
    <description>Conversion of exempt hank yarn into cone yarn was treated as manufacture under Note 3 to Chapter 51, so duty liability arose in principle. However, the extended period of limitation was not available because the assessee was registered, maintained statutory records, filed returns, and had approved declarations on file; on those facts, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. Interest and mandatory penalty were also held inapplicable for the disputed period because Sections 11AB and 11AC operated prospectively from 28-9-1996, and the relevant demand related to an earlier period. Relief was therefore confined to the normal period, with penalties and interest set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:48:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 378 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93701</link>
      <description>Conversion of exempt hank yarn into cone yarn was treated as manufacture under Note 3 to Chapter 51, so duty liability arose in principle. However, the extended period of limitation was not available because the assessee was registered, maintained statutory records, filed returns, and had approved declarations on file; on those facts, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. Interest and mandatory penalty were also held inapplicable for the disputed period because Sections 11AB and 11AC operated prospectively from 28-9-1996, and the relevant demand related to an earlier period. Relief was therefore confined to the normal period, with penalties and interest set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>