<?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>2007 (2) TMI 21 -  CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1255</link>
    <description>Aluminium hydroxide and copper sludge cleared by a 100% EOU were held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. because the goods were not manufactured wholly out of raw materials produced or manufactured in India; intermediate processing after use of imported inputs did not satisfy the notification. On limitation, conflicting Tribunal views and a later Larger Bench ruling showed a bona fide interpretation by the assessee, so no suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty was proved and the extended period was unavailable. Penalties also failed for want of the necessary mens rea. Duty survived only for the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 21 -  CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1255</link>
      <description>Aluminium hydroxide and copper sludge cleared by a 100% EOU were held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. because the goods were not manufactured wholly out of raw materials produced or manufactured in India; intermediate processing after use of imported inputs did not satisfy the notification. On limitation, conflicting Tribunal views and a later Larger Bench ruling showed a bona fide interpretation by the assessee, so no suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty was proved and the extended period was unavailable. Penalties also failed for want of the necessary mens rea. Duty survived only for the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>