<?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>2006 (3) TMI 734 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172145</link>
    <description>Cash delivery vans mounted on duty-paid chassis were treated as goods carriages rather than passenger vehicles, and the Chapter 87 amendment in April 2001 was applied to support classification outside Heading 87.07. Clubbing of clearances for denial of small scale industry exemption was rejected because the Department did not establish, with adequate legal basis, that the units were not independent in substance. The extended period of limitation was also found unsustainable, as wilful suppression or misstatement was not proved and the activity was within departmental knowledge. As the duty demand failed, confiscation and consequential penalties, including personal penalty, were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 734 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172145</link>
      <description>Cash delivery vans mounted on duty-paid chassis were treated as goods carriages rather than passenger vehicles, and the Chapter 87 amendment in April 2001 was applied to support classification outside Heading 87.07. Clubbing of clearances for denial of small scale industry exemption was rejected because the Department did not establish, with adequate legal basis, that the units were not independent in substance. The extended period of limitation was also found unsustainable, as wilful suppression or misstatement was not proved and the activity was within departmental knowledge. As the duty demand failed, confiscation and consequential penalties, including personal penalty, were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>