<?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>2006 (1) TMI 423 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117647</link>
    <description>Cement concrete building blocks did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 64/88 because the notification was confined to components or intermediates of pre-fabricated buildings, and the blocks were found to be used in ordinary masonry work rather than in pre-fabricated construction. Demand for duty was sustainable only for the normal limitation period where classification had been finally approved; provisional assessments were not affected by limitation. The extended period was unavailable because the record did not show suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, and penalties were not warranted in the absence of culpable intent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:18:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 423 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117647</link>
      <description>Cement concrete building blocks did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 64/88 because the notification was confined to components or intermediates of pre-fabricated buildings, and the blocks were found to be used in ordinary masonry work rather than in pre-fabricated construction. Demand for duty was sustainable only for the normal limitation period where classification had been finally approved; provisional assessments were not affected by limitation. The extended period was unavailable because the record did not show suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, and penalties were not warranted in the absence of culpable intent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>