<?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 (9) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1668</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld that &#039;CRC 2-26&#039; is a blended lubricating oil entitled to exemption under Notification No. 120/84 due to its composition and primary function. The respondent was found entitled to SSI exemption for &#039;CRC Acryform&#039; under Notification No. 175/86 as there was no evidence of any connection with CRC Chemicals Europe. No willful misstatement was proven, making the demand time-barred under Section 11A(1). The penalty imposition was deemed unwarranted, and the respondent was not considered a related person to BBL. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the respondent&#039;s entitlement to exemptions and lack of willful suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 May 2011 14:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1668</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld that &#039;CRC 2-26&#039; is a blended lubricating oil entitled to exemption under Notification No. 120/84 due to its composition and primary function. The respondent was found entitled to SSI exemption for &#039;CRC Acryform&#039; under Notification No. 175/86 as there was no evidence of any connection with CRC Chemicals Europe. No willful misstatement was proven, making the demand time-barred under Section 11A(1). The penalty imposition was deemed unwarranted, and the respondent was not considered a related person to BBL. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the respondent&#039;s entitlement to exemptions and lack of willful suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>