<?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 (4) TMI 1411 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378967</link>
    <description>Iron castings produced up to the stage of proof-machining were treated as Chapter 73 goods rather than machine parts under Chapters 84 to 87, because they were not precision castings and the tariff scheme and Board circulars supported classification under heading 73.25. On that basis, the relevant exemption notifications applied, including for brass cast articles made from scrap and mould patterns used within the factory. The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was found unavailable where the department knew the manufacturing activity and declarations, the assessee acted on a bona fide exemption belief, and suppression or intent to evade duty was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:27:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1411 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378967</link>
      <description>Iron castings produced up to the stage of proof-machining were treated as Chapter 73 goods rather than machine parts under Chapters 84 to 87, because they were not precision castings and the tariff scheme and Board circulars supported classification under heading 73.25. On that basis, the relevant exemption notifications applied, including for brass cast articles made from scrap and mould patterns used within the factory. The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was found unavailable where the department knew the manufacturing activity and declarations, the assessee acted on a bona fide exemption belief, and suppression or intent to evade duty was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>