<?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 447 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94663</link>
    <description>In a waiver of pre-deposit application concerning a duty and penalty demand on alleged conversion of aluminium scrap into aluminium powder classifiable under Heading 76.03, the Tribunal found only a partial prima facie dispute on classification and on the applicability of the extended limitation period under the Central Excise Act. The department had some prima facie support from a production manager&#039;s statement and technical literature, while the applicants had raised arguable doubts about whether the product met the tariff description and mesh-passing requirement, and about treatment of stock under Rule 57H. Financial hardship was not established for complete dispensation, so only partial waiver was granted and recovery of the balance was stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:03:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 447 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94663</link>
      <description>In a waiver of pre-deposit application concerning a duty and penalty demand on alleged conversion of aluminium scrap into aluminium powder classifiable under Heading 76.03, the Tribunal found only a partial prima facie dispute on classification and on the applicability of the extended limitation period under the Central Excise Act. The department had some prima facie support from a production manager&#039;s statement and technical literature, while the applicants had raised arguable doubts about whether the product met the tariff description and mesh-passing requirement, and about treatment of stock under Rule 57H. Financial hardship was not established for complete dispensation, so only partial waiver was granted and recovery of the balance was stayed.</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=94663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>