<?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 (5) TMI 250 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167020</link>
    <description>Clearances under a loan-licence based exemption scheme were not excludible from the manufacturer&#039;s aggregate clearances where the prescribed procedural conditions were not complied with, including filing the price list, maintaining statutory records, issuing gate passes and showing the clearances in returns. On those facts, the goods were treated as part of the manufacturer&#039;s own turnover for small-scale industry exemption purposes, and the duty demand was sustained. The record also supported invocation of the extended period because of non-accountal and contravention of mandatory excise requirements. However, the penalty was viewed as excessive and was reduced, with the demand otherwise maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:23:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (5) TMI 250 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167020</link>
      <description>Clearances under a loan-licence based exemption scheme were not excludible from the manufacturer&#039;s aggregate clearances where the prescribed procedural conditions were not complied with, including filing the price list, maintaining statutory records, issuing gate passes and showing the clearances in returns. On those facts, the goods were treated as part of the manufacturer&#039;s own turnover for small-scale industry exemption purposes, and the duty demand was sustained. The record also supported invocation of the extended period because of non-accountal and contravention of mandatory excise requirements. However, the penalty was viewed as excessive and was reduced, with the demand otherwise maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>