<?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 (9) TMI 824 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152386</link>
    <description>Personal penalty on purchasers was held unsustainable where the goods were bought under departmental CT-2/Annexure I certificates, the supplier&#039;s 100% EOU status was disclosed in the invoices, and no duty-evasion intent or suppression of material facts was shown. Acting on Revenue-issued certificates meant the purchasers had no legal duty to independently verify the supplier&#039;s entitlement to DTA clearances. The transaction was also treated as revenue neutral because the raw materials were used to manufacture exported final products, so any duty paid would have been available as refund or credit. The penalty demand was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2013 15:03:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 824 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152386</link>
      <description>Personal penalty on purchasers was held unsustainable where the goods were bought under departmental CT-2/Annexure I certificates, the supplier&#039;s 100% EOU status was disclosed in the invoices, and no duty-evasion intent or suppression of material facts was shown. Acting on Revenue-issued certificates meant the purchasers had no legal duty to independently verify the supplier&#039;s entitlement to DTA clearances. The transaction was also treated as revenue neutral because the raw materials were used to manufacture exported final products, so any duty paid would have been available as refund or credit. The penalty demand was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>