<?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>2015 (1) TMI 678 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255479</link>
    <description>Interest remained payable on duty that had been admitted and paid before the show cause notice in respect of wrong exemption availment, but penalty was not sustained because suppression of facts was not established. A duty demand founded only on standard input-output norms for terry towels was deleted where there was no corroborative evidence of excess yarn consumption or diversion, the PVA fibre was shown to dissolve during processing, and the waste stayed within permissible limits after exclusion. On that footing, the related duty, interest and penalties were set aside, and the personal penalty on the co-appellant also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 678 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255479</link>
      <description>Interest remained payable on duty that had been admitted and paid before the show cause notice in respect of wrong exemption availment, but penalty was not sustained because suppression of facts was not established. A duty demand founded only on standard input-output norms for terry towels was deleted where there was no corroborative evidence of excess yarn consumption or diversion, the PVA fibre was shown to dissolve during processing, and the waste stayed within permissible limits after exclusion. On that footing, the related duty, interest and penalties were set aside, and the personal penalty on the co-appellant also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>