<?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 (6) TMI 232 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167043</link>
    <description>Cutting duty-paid aluminium sheets into aluminium circles was treated as manufacture because the tariff entry itself regarded circles as manufactured goods; the circles were therefore dutiable, subject to any separately available exemption or set-off. The excise demand was also confined to the one-year period preceding the show cause notice, since the matter proceeded on a shared mistaken interpretation and departmental knowledge, so the balance of the demand was barred by limitation. Retrospective relief under Rule 56A was not granted, as no binding direction required it and the conditions for invoking the proviso were not established on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:18:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 232 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167043</link>
      <description>Cutting duty-paid aluminium sheets into aluminium circles was treated as manufacture because the tariff entry itself regarded circles as manufactured goods; the circles were therefore dutiable, subject to any separately available exemption or set-off. The excise demand was also confined to the one-year period preceding the show cause notice, since the matter proceeded on a shared mistaken interpretation and departmental knowledge, so the balance of the demand was barred by limitation. Retrospective relief under Rule 56A was not granted, as no binding direction required it and the conditions for invoking the proviso were not established on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>