<?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>2010 (7) TMI 440 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202925</link>
    <description>A 100% EOU&#039;s DTA clearances made under permission tied to para 9.9(e) of the Exim Policy 1997-2002 were not treated as exempt under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. because the permission letters required payment of full duties and taxes, so the duty demand and interest were upheld in principle. The assessable value, however, had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis where the sale price already realised was presumed to include duty unless shown otherwise, and the matter was remanded for fresh quantification. Penalties on the company and its Managing Director were set aside because bona fide belief and disclosure to the Department negated deliberate suppression or contumacious conduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 440 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202925</link>
      <description>A 100% EOU&#039;s DTA clearances made under permission tied to para 9.9(e) of the Exim Policy 1997-2002 were not treated as exempt under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. because the permission letters required payment of full duties and taxes, so the duty demand and interest were upheld in principle. The assessable value, however, had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis where the sale price already realised was presumed to include duty unless shown otherwise, and the matter was remanded for fresh quantification. Penalties on the company and its Managing Director were set aside because bona fide belief and disclosure to the Department negated deliberate suppression or contumacious conduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>