<?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 (5) TMI 692 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106313</link>
    <description>Departmental knowledge and repeated disclosure of the activity defeated any allegation of suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The conversion of duty-paid rounded aluminium bottles into tapered, threaded or unthreaded bottles produced a commercially distinct and differently usable product, satisfying the test of manufacture and, in principle, attracting central excise duty. The exemption and set-off claims required consideration on their merits, and the penalty could not survive where the underlying demand itself failed. The discussion therefore turns on limitation, manufacture, and the treatment of exemption-linked penalty exposure in excise matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:26:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 692 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106313</link>
      <description>Departmental knowledge and repeated disclosure of the activity defeated any allegation of suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The conversion of duty-paid rounded aluminium bottles into tapered, threaded or unthreaded bottles produced a commercially distinct and differently usable product, satisfying the test of manufacture and, in principle, attracting central excise duty. The exemption and set-off claims required consideration on their merits, and the penalty could not survive where the underlying demand itself failed. The discussion therefore turns on limitation, manufacture, and the treatment of exemption-linked penalty exposure in excise matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>