<?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>1999 (9) TMI 779 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104407</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was unavailable where steel tubes and pipes were manufactured from bars, because the notification&#039;s input condition was not satisfied and the goods were not made from the eligible inputs described as flats. For limitation, incomplete or incorrect declarations made to obtain exemption and licensing relief were treated as suppression or mis-statement under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Actual departmental knowledge did not by itself defeat suppression where the declarations misdescribed the inputs and manufacturing particulars. The duty demand and related penalties were therefore sustained on the facts recorded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:56:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 779 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104407</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was unavailable where steel tubes and pipes were manufactured from bars, because the notification&#039;s input condition was not satisfied and the goods were not made from the eligible inputs described as flats. For limitation, incomplete or incorrect declarations made to obtain exemption and licensing relief were treated as suppression or mis-statement under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Actual departmental knowledge did not by itself defeat suppression where the declarations misdescribed the inputs and manufacturing particulars. The duty demand and related penalties were therefore sustained on the facts recorded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>