<?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 (9) TMI 641 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112726</link>
    <description>Goods supplied for use in a warship under construction do not qualify as &quot;stores for consumption on board&quot; a vessel under Notification No. 64/95-C.E., because the phrase &quot;on board&quot; applies only to a vessel already in existence. The exemption was therefore unavailable on merits. The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was also not available where Naval certificates and supporting invoices, purchase orders, and related documents were already before the department at assessment; recovery was confined to the normal period. In light of that limitation finding, penalty was not justified and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 15:10:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 641 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112726</link>
      <description>Goods supplied for use in a warship under construction do not qualify as &quot;stores for consumption on board&quot; a vessel under Notification No. 64/95-C.E., because the phrase &quot;on board&quot; applies only to a vessel already in existence. The exemption was therefore unavailable on merits. The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was also not available where Naval certificates and supporting invoices, purchase orders, and related documents were already before the department at assessment; recovery was confined to the normal period. In light of that limitation finding, penalty was not justified and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>