<?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 (7) TMI 545 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261584</link>
    <description>Machines used only to handle, transport, lift, store or feed grain within a factory were classified under Heading 8428, because they did not process, clean, sort, grade, grind or crush grain and conveyor-like equipment is excluded from Heading 8437. Deliberate misdescription of the goods, coupled with non-disclosure of their true nature and absence of registration or returns, justified invocation of the extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 11AC. The matter was remanded for limited verification of admissible cenvat credit and the resulting net duty liability, and the penalty on the managing director was upheld in principle but reduced in quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 545 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261584</link>
      <description>Machines used only to handle, transport, lift, store or feed grain within a factory were classified under Heading 8428, because they did not process, clean, sort, grade, grind or crush grain and conveyor-like equipment is excluded from Heading 8437. Deliberate misdescription of the goods, coupled with non-disclosure of their true nature and absence of registration or returns, justified invocation of the extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 11AC. The matter was remanded for limited verification of admissible cenvat credit and the resulting net duty liability, and the penalty on the managing director was upheld in principle but reduced in quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>