<?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 (5) TMI 690 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100111</link>
    <description>Complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was declined where the demand involved additional duty on captively consumed bleached cotton fabrics. The Bench held that departmental knowledge was prima facie insufficient to displace the allegation of suppression, although the assessee&#039;s revenue-neutrality plea had some force because Modvat credit on input duty could be available. Rule 57E, including the limitation in sub-rule (3), prevented that plea from covering the entire disputed period, so conditional deposit was ordered against the company. By contrast, the prima facie case against the company&#039;s officers under Rule 209A was not strong enough to justify insisting on pre-deposit, and their penalty pre-deposit was waived in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:29:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 690 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100111</link>
      <description>Complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was declined where the demand involved additional duty on captively consumed bleached cotton fabrics. The Bench held that departmental knowledge was prima facie insufficient to displace the allegation of suppression, although the assessee&#039;s revenue-neutrality plea had some force because Modvat credit on input duty could be available. Rule 57E, including the limitation in sub-rule (3), prevented that plea from covering the entire disputed period, so conditional deposit was ordered against the company. By contrast, the prima facie case against the company&#039;s officers under Rule 209A was not strong enough to justify insisting on pre-deposit, and their penalty pre-deposit was waived in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>