<?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 (11) TMI 405 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205134</link>
    <description>At the pre-deposit stage, complete waiver was refused because the appellants did not establish a prima facie case against the concurrent findings that the product included pipe fittings, that the fittings were classifiable under a different sub-heading, and that the notification conditions were not clearly satisfied. The Tribunal also found that the certificate produced did not prima facie prove the required use condition and that non-disclosure of the pipe fittings and classification details until audit and investigation supported suppression of facts. Duty and interest were therefore directed to be deposited, while penalty was waived only until disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178657" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 405 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205134</link>
      <description>At the pre-deposit stage, complete waiver was refused because the appellants did not establish a prima facie case against the concurrent findings that the product included pipe fittings, that the fittings were classifiable under a different sub-heading, and that the notification conditions were not clearly satisfied. The Tribunal also found that the certificate produced did not prima facie prove the required use condition and that non-disclosure of the pipe fittings and classification details until audit and investigation supported suppression of facts. Duty and interest were therefore directed to be deposited, while penalty was waived only until disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>