<?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>1984 (1) TMI 304 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166768</link>
    <description>A Government company incorporated under the Companies Act is treated as a separate juristic person, so its factory is not regarded as belonging to the Central Government merely because the Government holds all shares; on that basis, exemption under Notification No. 56/75-C.E. was unavailable. The text also states that Rule 9(2) applies where excisable goods are manufactured and cleared without disclosure to the excise authorities, including failure to declare manufacture, file classification lists, or record production and clearance in the prescribed accounts. In those circumstances, the duty demand was valid and not confined to the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2014 14:48:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 304 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166768</link>
      <description>A Government company incorporated under the Companies Act is treated as a separate juristic person, so its factory is not regarded as belonging to the Central Government merely because the Government holds all shares; on that basis, exemption under Notification No. 56/75-C.E. was unavailable. The text also states that Rule 9(2) applies where excisable goods are manufactured and cleared without disclosure to the excise authorities, including failure to declare manufacture, file classification lists, or record production and clearance in the prescribed accounts. In those circumstances, the duty demand was valid and not confined to the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>