<?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>1998 (5) TMI 319 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102929</link>
    <description>Clearances to a raw material supplier were treated as fully manufactured goods because the unit&#039;s director admitted the goods were made from the buyer&#039;s materials, were socketed and ready for use, and job charges were received; the exemption claim for job-work clearances therefore failed and the clearances were includible for excise purposes. The duty demand nevertheless was held time-barred because the department had already obtained the relevant facts during search and investigation, yet issued the show cause notice only after the normal limitation period. On those facts, the extended period was unavailable, and the demand and penalties did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:24:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 319 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102929</link>
      <description>Clearances to a raw material supplier were treated as fully manufactured goods because the unit&#039;s director admitted the goods were made from the buyer&#039;s materials, were socketed and ready for use, and job charges were received; the exemption claim for job-work clearances therefore failed and the clearances were includible for excise purposes. The duty demand nevertheless was held time-barred because the department had already obtained the relevant facts during search and investigation, yet issued the show cause notice only after the normal limitation period. On those facts, the extended period was unavailable, and the demand and penalties did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>