<?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 (9) TMI 479 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117094</link>
    <description>Duty paid before the show cause notice defeats the statutory basis for mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, and the penalty was therefore not leviable on that footing. In job-work arrangements, scrap generated at the job workers&#039; premises must be cleared on duty or returned within the Rule 57F framework; where the assessee produced no convincing proof of lawful payment or return, the duty demand was sustained. A scrap demand concerning M/s. Tejaswi Engineering Components Pvt. Ltd. required fresh factual verification and was remanded, while the penalty under Rule 173Q was upheld for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:05:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 479 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117094</link>
      <description>Duty paid before the show cause notice defeats the statutory basis for mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, and the penalty was therefore not leviable on that footing. In job-work arrangements, scrap generated at the job workers&#039; premises must be cleared on duty or returned within the Rule 57F framework; where the assessee produced no convincing proof of lawful payment or return, the duty demand was sustained. A scrap demand concerning M/s. Tejaswi Engineering Components Pvt. Ltd. required fresh factual verification and was remanded, while the penalty under Rule 173Q was upheld for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>