<?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>2005 (3) TMI 642 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115982</link>
    <description>Exemption for cast iron goods depends on proof that the goods satisfy the exempted description. The assessee claimed the clearances were unmachined castings, but the record did not establish that machining was done by buyers, nor was there reliable proof of the alleged departmental letter or the asserted classification list. The burden of showing entitlement to exemption was therefore not discharged, and the goods were treated as machined cast articles of iron liable to duty. The document further notes that non-disclosure of the true nature of the goods amounted to suppression of material facts, defeating the plea of limitation and supporting penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:06:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 642 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115982</link>
      <description>Exemption for cast iron goods depends on proof that the goods satisfy the exempted description. The assessee claimed the clearances were unmachined castings, but the record did not establish that machining was done by buyers, nor was there reliable proof of the alleged departmental letter or the asserted classification list. The burden of showing entitlement to exemption was therefore not discharged, and the goods were treated as machined cast articles of iron liable to duty. The document further notes that non-disclosure of the true nature of the goods amounted to suppression of material facts, defeating the plea of limitation and supporting penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>