<?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>2004 (3) TMI 568 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111903</link>
    <description>Plastic water storage tanks were held to be classifiable by actual capacity, not by declared price or assumption, and physical verification together with the assessee&#039;s own test data showed capacity above 300 litres, taking the goods outside the exemption for smaller tanks. Deliberate misdeclaration supported the duty demand, required the sale price to be treated as cum-duty price for reassessment, and justified invocation of the extended limitation period. Penalty was sustained on the assessee-firm and the Director involved in the misdeclaration, but the Director&#039;s penalty was reduced and no penalty was sustained against the other Director.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:45:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 568 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111903</link>
      <description>Plastic water storage tanks were held to be classifiable by actual capacity, not by declared price or assumption, and physical verification together with the assessee&#039;s own test data showed capacity above 300 litres, taking the goods outside the exemption for smaller tanks. Deliberate misdeclaration supported the duty demand, required the sale price to be treated as cum-duty price for reassessment, and justified invocation of the extended limitation period. Penalty was sustained on the assessee-firm and the Director involved in the misdeclaration, but the Director&#039;s penalty was reduced and no penalty was sustained against the other Director.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>