<?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>2001 (2) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95953</link>
    <description>Conditional SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was treated as available once the assessee had applied for SSI registration, so administrative delay in issuing the certificate could not defeat the benefit from the application date. At the same time, the Tribunal accepted evidence showing manufacture and clearance of rubber beltings containing more than 25% rubber compound, which supported central excise duty liability. On valuation, the 1990-91 clearance value could not be fixed on a purely pro rata basis from challans alone and required fresh verification; the penalty was therefore set aside pending redetermination of duty and reconsideration of consequential penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:23:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95953</link>
      <description>Conditional SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was treated as available once the assessee had applied for SSI registration, so administrative delay in issuing the certificate could not defeat the benefit from the application date. At the same time, the Tribunal accepted evidence showing manufacture and clearance of rubber beltings containing more than 25% rubber compound, which supported central excise duty liability. On valuation, the 1990-91 clearance value could not be fixed on a purely pro rata basis from challans alone and required fresh verification; the penalty was therefore set aside pending redetermination of duty and reconsideration of consequential penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>