<?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 (2) TMI 684 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195830</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that clearances for separate manufacturing units must be aggregated under SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. due to shared machinery. The classification dispute was settled with Battery parts falling under Heading 85.07. An extended limitation period applied due to incorrect goods declaration. Penalties were reduced for entities and individuals, with excessive penalties set aside. Confiscation of goods was upheld, but confiscation of plant and machinery was overturned. Input duty credit was allowed, and duty recalculated based on cum-duty price. Overall, the appeals were partly allowed after thorough consideration of each issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:24:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 684 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195830</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that clearances for separate manufacturing units must be aggregated under SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. due to shared machinery. The classification dispute was settled with Battery parts falling under Heading 85.07. An extended limitation period applied due to incorrect goods declaration. Penalties were reduced for entities and individuals, with excessive penalties set aside. Confiscation of goods was upheld, but confiscation of plant and machinery was overturned. Input duty credit was allowed, and duty recalculated based on cum-duty price. Overall, the appeals were partly allowed after thorough consideration of each issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>