<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1144 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238689</link>
    <description>Notification No. 67/95-CE was unavailable for molasses captively consumed in manufacturing rectified spirit cleared at nil rate of duty, because the exemption applied only where the final product was dutiable; a later arrangement of paying an amount equivalent to 8% of the final product value did not cure the defect for the earlier period. However, the demand was time-barred since the clearances and exemption claim were disclosed in RT-12 returns, suppression or intent to evade duty was not established, and the dispute was revenue-neutral. On that basis, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1144 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238689</link>
      <description>Notification No. 67/95-CE was unavailable for molasses captively consumed in manufacturing rectified spirit cleared at nil rate of duty, because the exemption applied only where the final product was dutiable; a later arrangement of paying an amount equivalent to 8% of the final product value did not cure the defect for the earlier period. However, the demand was time-barred since the clearances and exemption claim were disclosed in RT-12 returns, suppression or intent to evade duty was not established, and the dispute was revenue-neutral. On that basis, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>