<?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>2014 (6) TMI 515 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248611</link>
    <description>Nil-rate exemption for pumps applies only where the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.13 and are primarily designed for handling water; pumps shown by product literature to be capable of handling other liquids, including a flame-proof model and sales to industrial users, do not satisfy that condition, so the exemption was denied. Although the assessee had filed classification lists and cleared the goods under the claimed notification, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established, so the extended period of limitation was not invocable. For the same reason, the penalty could not stand. Demand survived only for the normal period, with extended-period demand and penalties set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 515 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248611</link>
      <description>Nil-rate exemption for pumps applies only where the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.13 and are primarily designed for handling water; pumps shown by product literature to be capable of handling other liquids, including a flame-proof model and sales to industrial users, do not satisfy that condition, so the exemption was denied. Although the assessee had filed classification lists and cleared the goods under the claimed notification, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established, so the extended period of limitation was not invocable. For the same reason, the penalty could not stand. Demand survived only for the normal period, with extended-period demand and penalties set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>