<?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 (5) TMI 37 - Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=879</link>
    <description>Plastic containers manufactured from supplied granules and cleared under the Notification No. 214/86-CE arrangement were treated as duty-liable once duty had arisen, so the duty demand on the containers was confirmed. Penalty under Section 11AC was set aside for the container manufacturer, while confiscation of the seized containers was upheld and the redemption fine was reduced to 30% of the value of the goods. For the vanaspati manufacturer, penalty under Rule 209A was maintained because it knew the exemption position and dealt with containers that had become duty-liable, but the penalty was reduced in light of the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 37 - Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=879</link>
      <description>Plastic containers manufactured from supplied granules and cleared under the Notification No. 214/86-CE arrangement were treated as duty-liable once duty had arisen, so the duty demand on the containers was confirmed. Penalty under Section 11AC was set aside for the container manufacturer, while confiscation of the seized containers was upheld and the redemption fine was reduced to 30% of the value of the goods. For the vanaspati manufacturer, penalty under Rule 209A was maintained because it knew the exemption position and dealt with containers that had become duty-liable, but the penalty was reduced in light of the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>