<?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>2002 (2) TMI 701 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101701</link>
    <description>Goods cleared as sewing thread were held to fall within the tariff definition because the record evidence and the partner&#039;s admission showed yarn was rewound and cleared in that form, despite no specific chemical-report reference to dressing. Exemption under Notification No. 84/95 was unavailable because the condition of manufacture from duty-paid yarn was not met, as the yarn had been procured in hanks without payment of duty. Suppression of manufacture and clearances justified the extended limitation period, so the demand was not time-barred. Duty and interest were sustained, while the penalty was reduced because most of the relevant period preceded the penal provision invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:31:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 701 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101701</link>
      <description>Goods cleared as sewing thread were held to fall within the tariff definition because the record evidence and the partner&#039;s admission showed yarn was rewound and cleared in that form, despite no specific chemical-report reference to dressing. Exemption under Notification No. 84/95 was unavailable because the condition of manufacture from duty-paid yarn was not met, as the yarn had been procured in hanks without payment of duty. Suppression of manufacture and clearances justified the extended limitation period, so the demand was not time-barred. Duty and interest were sustained, while the penalty was reduced because most of the relevant period preceded the penal provision invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>