<?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 (12) TMI 937 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390054</link>
    <description>A stationary bulk milk cooler used to cool milk for preservation and storage was treated as stationary pre-cooling equipment falling within the exempted entry under the relevant notifications, and the HSN-based classification approach supported that view. Non-compliance with the concessional clearance procedure did not defeat the exemption where the actual use by milk co-operative societies and the department&#039;s knowledge were undisputed. For valuation, the resale price of an interconnected undertaking was not adopted; the transaction value at removal remained relevant, and the goods&#039; value could not be used to cross the SSI threshold once exemption applied. In the absence of suppression or fraud, the extended limitation period was unavailable and penalties could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:51:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 937 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390054</link>
      <description>A stationary bulk milk cooler used to cool milk for preservation and storage was treated as stationary pre-cooling equipment falling within the exempted entry under the relevant notifications, and the HSN-based classification approach supported that view. Non-compliance with the concessional clearance procedure did not defeat the exemption where the actual use by milk co-operative societies and the department&#039;s knowledge were undisputed. For valuation, the resale price of an interconnected undertaking was not adopted; the transaction value at removal remained relevant, and the goods&#039; value could not be used to cross the SSI threshold once exemption applied. In the absence of suppression or fraud, the extended limitation period was unavailable and penalties could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>