<?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>2000 (12) TMI 870 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108664</link>
    <description>Excise duty was held not payable on job-worker clearances made under an export-linked scheme where the materials were processed for export, the goods were not shown to have entered the domestic market, and the non-execution of bond was treated as a procedural lapse under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the record showed export declarations and no suppression of facts. Penalties and confiscation fell with the duty demand. Only the admitted sample-clearance component required fresh adjudication, as its computation and any related adjustment were left unresolved and were remanded for hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:38:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 870 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108664</link>
      <description>Excise duty was held not payable on job-worker clearances made under an export-linked scheme where the materials were processed for export, the goods were not shown to have entered the domestic market, and the non-execution of bond was treated as a procedural lapse under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the record showed export declarations and no suppression of facts. Penalties and confiscation fell with the duty demand. Only the admitted sample-clearance component required fresh adjudication, as its computation and any related adjustment were left unresolved and were remanded for hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>