<?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>1995 (2) TMI 446 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181409</link>
    <description>Assembly of complete machining centres imported in CKD condition was held not to amount to manufacture, because the factory operations only involved assembly, scraping, machining of mating surfaces, fitting of taper wedges, alignment and interfacing of controls and did not create a new product with a distinct name, character or use. The duty demand was also held time-barred, as the importer had disclosed the goods and sought departmental permission, which negatived suppression and the extended limitation period. Penalties on the company and its officers were set aside because the duty demand failed and no definite individual role in the alleged evasion was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:50:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 446 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181409</link>
      <description>Assembly of complete machining centres imported in CKD condition was held not to amount to manufacture, because the factory operations only involved assembly, scraping, machining of mating surfaces, fitting of taper wedges, alignment and interfacing of controls and did not create a new product with a distinct name, character or use. The duty demand was also held time-barred, as the importer had disclosed the goods and sought departmental permission, which negatived suppression and the extended limitation period. Penalties on the company and its officers were set aside because the duty demand failed and no definite individual role in the alleged evasion was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>