<?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 (2) TMI 1094 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375467</link>
    <description>A job worker manufacturing plastic containers for a principal manufacturer availing area-based exemption could not claim Notification No. 214/86-CE because the notification applies only when the job-work goods are used in manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty or within the notified categories. Since the principal manufacturer was not clearing the final products on duty payment, the exemption conditions were not met. The text also states that awareness of this position negated bona fide belief, supported an inference of intent to evade duty, and justified both penalty and the duty demand, with the limitation objection failing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 06:35:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=558925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 1094 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375467</link>
      <description>A job worker manufacturing plastic containers for a principal manufacturer availing area-based exemption could not claim Notification No. 214/86-CE because the notification applies only when the job-work goods are used in manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty or within the notified categories. Since the principal manufacturer was not clearing the final products on duty payment, the exemption conditions were not met. The text also states that awareness of this position negated bona fide belief, supported an inference of intent to evade duty, and justified both penalty and the duty demand, with the limitation objection failing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>