<?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>2009 (1) TMI 658 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125807</link>
    <description>Exemption for paper board cleared under Sub-Heading 4802.20 depended on strict compliance with Chapter 48, Sub-heading Note No. 2, including a valid KVIC certificate and proof of the prescribed manufacturing conditions. The certificate produced related to an earlier period and had a one-year validity, while the claim regarding the cylinder mould vat was unsupported by evidence; the returns also failed to disclose the relevant manufacturing process. On this material, the finding of suppression was treated as reasonable, and no prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit was made out. The appellants were required to pre-deposit the entire duty amount, and recovery of penalty was stayed pending the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:36:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 658 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125807</link>
      <description>Exemption for paper board cleared under Sub-Heading 4802.20 depended on strict compliance with Chapter 48, Sub-heading Note No. 2, including a valid KVIC certificate and proof of the prescribed manufacturing conditions. The certificate produced related to an earlier period and had a one-year validity, while the claim regarding the cylinder mould vat was unsupported by evidence; the returns also failed to disclose the relevant manufacturing process. On this material, the finding of suppression was treated as reasonable, and no prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit was made out. The appellants were required to pre-deposit the entire duty amount, and recovery of penalty was stayed pending the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>