<?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 (8) TMI 325 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167113</link>
    <description>For exemption under Notification No. 176/77-CE, clearance value had to be computed on the basis of actual clearances, including the value of brass circles processed on job-work, while captive consumption clearances were excluded under Notification No. 246/1977-CE; the assessee&#039;s claim that only job charges could be counted was rejected, and the clearance limit was held exceeded. The demand was also held within the extended limitation period because the classification disclosures did not reveal the manufacture of utensils and relevant facts were suppressed. Penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced substantially as excessive on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:04:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 325 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167113</link>
      <description>For exemption under Notification No. 176/77-CE, clearance value had to be computed on the basis of actual clearances, including the value of brass circles processed on job-work, while captive consumption clearances were excluded under Notification No. 246/1977-CE; the assessee&#039;s claim that only job charges could be counted was rejected, and the clearance limit was held exceeded. The demand was also held within the extended limitation period because the classification disclosures did not reveal the manufacture of utensils and relevant facts were suppressed. Penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced substantially as excessive on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>