<?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 (3) TMI 666 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376645</link>
    <description>Eligibility under the compounded levy scheme turned on the original value of plant and machinery, determined on applicable accounting principles; generator, lift, spares and pollution control equipment were treated as part of plant and machinery, and the assessee failed the Rs. 3 crore threshold. Duty on job-work clearances had to be confined to job charges and material cost, while export clearances did not justify differential duty; the remaining demand required fresh re-examination and re-quantification on revised figures. Penalties on the assessee and other noticees were held unsustainable because the dispute involved interpretation and quantification, with no adequate basis for suppression or active connivance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:18:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 666 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376645</link>
      <description>Eligibility under the compounded levy scheme turned on the original value of plant and machinery, determined on applicable accounting principles; generator, lift, spares and pollution control equipment were treated as part of plant and machinery, and the assessee failed the Rs. 3 crore threshold. Duty on job-work clearances had to be confined to job charges and material cost, while export clearances did not justify differential duty; the remaining demand required fresh re-examination and re-quantification on revised figures. Penalties on the assessee and other noticees were held unsustainable because the dispute involved interpretation and quantification, with no adequate basis for suppression or active connivance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>