<?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 (5) TMI 1287 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380559</link>
    <description>Clearances of syringe parts with packing material bearing the buyers&#039; names were held not to amount to clearance of complete syringes for central excise purposes, because the goods were sent to the buyers&#039; premises for further processing, including packing, sterilisation, quality checks and testing, which the record treated as manufacture. The demand on merits was therefore unsustainable. The note also states that the dispute was a bona fide interpretational issue with no suppression, misstatement or wilful omission, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked; the demand, interest and penalty were accordingly time-barred and relief followed in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2019 11:46:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1287 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380559</link>
      <description>Clearances of syringe parts with packing material bearing the buyers&#039; names were held not to amount to clearance of complete syringes for central excise purposes, because the goods were sent to the buyers&#039; premises for further processing, including packing, sterilisation, quality checks and testing, which the record treated as manufacture. The demand on merits was therefore unsustainable. The note also states that the dispute was a bona fide interpretational issue with no suppression, misstatement or wilful omission, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked; the demand, interest and penalty were accordingly time-barred and relief followed in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>