<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1381 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374216</link>
    <description>A beneficial excise exemption cannot be denied by importing conditions not stated in the notification, and procedural omissions in a bona fide inter-division job-work arrangement do not by themselves justify denial of Cenvat credit or duty demands where manufacture and intended supply are established. The text notes that goods manufactured through divisions and mobile plants of the same assessee, including supplies routed to project use, remained traceable within the assessee&#039;s records; the omission of the job-worker&#039;s name from the project certificate was treated as insufficient to defeat Notification No. 108/95-C.E. On limitation, disclosed records and the absence of suppression meant the extended period was not available, and penalties were unsustainable once the substantive demands failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1381 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374216</link>
      <description>A beneficial excise exemption cannot be denied by importing conditions not stated in the notification, and procedural omissions in a bona fide inter-division job-work arrangement do not by themselves justify denial of Cenvat credit or duty demands where manufacture and intended supply are established. The text notes that goods manufactured through divisions and mobile plants of the same assessee, including supplies routed to project use, remained traceable within the assessee&#039;s records; the omission of the job-worker&#039;s name from the project certificate was treated as insufficient to defeat Notification No. 108/95-C.E. On limitation, disclosed records and the absence of suppression meant the extended period was not available, and penalties were unsustainable once the substantive demands failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>