https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3648 Exemption under Notification No. 164/87 was available where parts were intended for use in manufacture of main battle tanks, and mere non-compliance with Chapter X procedure did not defeat the substantive exemption. Cum-duty valuation was accepted, with deduction of duty under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 available from the sale price where duty was recoverable. Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was found unsustainable against a company, while confiscation of radiators and the redemption fine were upheld because the goods were not intended for the relevant tank manufacture. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3648 Exemption under Notification No. 164/87 was available where parts were intended for use in manufacture of main battle tanks, and mere non-compliance with Chapter X procedure did not defeat the substantive exemption. Cum-duty valuation was accepted, with deduction of duty under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 available from the sale price where duty was recoverable. Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was found unsustainable against a company, while confiscation of radiators and the redemption fine were upheld because the goods were not intended for the relevant tank manufacture. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3648