<?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>1983 (5) TMI 229 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166119</link>
    <description>Where a small-scale exemption is conditional and subject to value limits and verification, failure to make the requisite declaration or produce supporting records may justify a finding of wilful suppression and trigger the extended five-year limitation period. The claimed exclusion of textile machinery parts manufactured without power was rejected for lack of contemporaneous proof, while the sale of nickel scrap was treated as separate duty-paid scrap and excluded from the 1979-80 clearances, reducing the demand to that extent. The confiscation fine and penalty were sustained because the suppression finding and repeated non-production of books showed no basis for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:54:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (5) TMI 229 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166119</link>
      <description>Where a small-scale exemption is conditional and subject to value limits and verification, failure to make the requisite declaration or produce supporting records may justify a finding of wilful suppression and trigger the extended five-year limitation period. The claimed exclusion of textile machinery parts manufactured without power was rejected for lack of contemporaneous proof, while the sale of nickel scrap was treated as separate duty-paid scrap and excluded from the 1979-80 clearances, reducing the demand to that extent. The confiscation fine and penalty were sustained because the suppression finding and repeated non-production of books showed no basis for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>