<?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 (6) TMI 263 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381186</link>
    <description>Classification of cable filling compound turned on its essential character: sealant and insulation were treated as dominant, so the product fell under heading 3823 and did not qualify for exemption meant for speciality oils under Notification No. 287/1986-CE. On clubbing, the record was insufficient to treat VIPI, Newton and AEI uniformly as dummy units; the departmental later stand supported separate treatment for VIPI, while AEI was clubbed with VIPI only for duty computation. The note also states that discrepancies between excise and income-tax figures, without corroboration, do not establish clandestine removal, so unsupported demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were not sustainable, and surviving duty was to be recalculated on cum-duty and SSI basis where applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 263 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381186</link>
      <description>Classification of cable filling compound turned on its essential character: sealant and insulation were treated as dominant, so the product fell under heading 3823 and did not qualify for exemption meant for speciality oils under Notification No. 287/1986-CE. On clubbing, the record was insufficient to treat VIPI, Newton and AEI uniformly as dummy units; the departmental later stand supported separate treatment for VIPI, while AEI was clubbed with VIPI only for duty computation. The note also states that discrepancies between excise and income-tax figures, without corroboration, do not establish clandestine removal, so unsupported demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were not sustainable, and surviving duty was to be recalculated on cum-duty and SSI basis where applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>