<?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 (4) TMI 394 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94850</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 69/86-C.E. was denied because enamelled copper winding wire was manufactured from base copper wire not exceeding 6 mm, while the notification required specified inputs including wire of maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 6 mm on which duty had already been paid. The fact that the original source may have been a larger wire rod did not satisfy that direct condition. Provisional assessment under Rule 9B did not enlarge entitlement to the exemption, and the plea of wrong duty rate was unavailable as it had not been raised below. Penalties were retained in part, with limited reduction on facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:39:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 394 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94850</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 69/86-C.E. was denied because enamelled copper winding wire was manufactured from base copper wire not exceeding 6 mm, while the notification required specified inputs including wire of maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 6 mm on which duty had already been paid. The fact that the original source may have been a larger wire rod did not satisfy that direct condition. Provisional assessment under Rule 9B did not enlarge entitlement to the exemption, and the plea of wrong duty rate was unavailable as it had not been raised below. Penalties were retained in part, with limited reduction on facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>