<?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 (5) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119715</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in a dispute over duty liability on vehicles and scrap resulting from body building on motor vehicle chassis. It held that vehicles were exempt under Notification No. 27/02 and scrap under Notification No. 89/95. The Tribunal found that the scrap arising from the body built on chassis was not exempt, classifying it under 8707 without exemption. It also determined that the duty demand for the extended period was unsustainable due to the assessee&#039;s erroneous practice rather than deliberate concealment of facts. The duty demand on scrap for the normal period was confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:52:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156711" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119715</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in a dispute over duty liability on vehicles and scrap resulting from body building on motor vehicle chassis. It held that vehicles were exempt under Notification No. 27/02 and scrap under Notification No. 89/95. The Tribunal found that the scrap arising from the body built on chassis was not exempt, classifying it under 8707 without exemption. It also determined that the duty demand for the extended period was unsustainable due to the assessee&#039;s erroneous practice rather than deliberate concealment of facts. The duty demand on scrap for the normal period was confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>