<?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 (5) TMI 766 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126641</link>
    <description>Instant coffee supplied in bulk to the Indian Army and ITBP for rationing purposes, without a statutory requirement to declare retail sale price on the package, was held assessable under Section 4 rather than Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The packaging was for defence-service supply and not retail sale to an ultimate consumer, so the precondition for Section 4A did not arise. On limitation, prior departmental knowledge of the clearances and disclosure by the assessee meant suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established, and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A could not be invoked. The duty demand for the relevant period was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 766 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126641</link>
      <description>Instant coffee supplied in bulk to the Indian Army and ITBP for rationing purposes, without a statutory requirement to declare retail sale price on the package, was held assessable under Section 4 rather than Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The packaging was for defence-service supply and not retail sale to an ultimate consumer, so the precondition for Section 4A did not arise. On limitation, prior departmental knowledge of the clearances and disclosure by the assessee meant suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established, and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A could not be invoked. The duty demand for the relevant period was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>