<?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>2003 (2) TMI 385 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109245</link>
    <description>Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) was construed to allow deemed credit to a composite mill manufacturing processed fabrics, and the benefit was not confined to fabrics received for processing on job work basis. A departmental restriction on actual credit was held inapplicable because the actual credit had been taken on fibre used in yarn manufacture, not on the final product covered by the notification. On limitation, the absence of any statutory duty to disclose that unprocessed fabrics were woven by outside weavers meant non-disclosure could not amount to suppression or concealment with intent to evade duty, so the extended period was unavailable. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:16:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 385 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109245</link>
      <description>Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) was construed to allow deemed credit to a composite mill manufacturing processed fabrics, and the benefit was not confined to fabrics received for processing on job work basis. A departmental restriction on actual credit was held inapplicable because the actual credit had been taken on fibre used in yarn manufacture, not on the final product covered by the notification. On limitation, the absence of any statutory duty to disclose that unprocessed fabrics were woven by outside weavers meant non-disclosure could not amount to suppression or concealment with intent to evade duty, so the extended period was unavailable. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>