<?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 1017 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390134</link>
    <description>A concessional exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE was construed strictly and was unavailable where bifurcation and separate registrations did not change the unit&#039;s substance as an integrated manufacturing setup with common control, infrastructure, and production flow. The notification&#039;s condition that the beneficiary be an independent texturizer without POY facilities was not satisfied. Valuation and duty quantification were required to be redetermined after examining permissible abatements, cum-duty treatment, and supporting evidence. The record was treated as showing suppression and misstatement to secure the concession, supporting invocation of the extended limitation period. Interest and penalties were sustained in principle, subject to recomputation, and admissible CENVAT/MODVAT credit was left open for consideration on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1017 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390134</link>
      <description>A concessional exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE was construed strictly and was unavailable where bifurcation and separate registrations did not change the unit&#039;s substance as an integrated manufacturing setup with common control, infrastructure, and production flow. The notification&#039;s condition that the beneficiary be an independent texturizer without POY facilities was not satisfied. Valuation and duty quantification were required to be redetermined after examining permissible abatements, cum-duty treatment, and supporting evidence. The record was treated as showing suppression and misstatement to secure the concession, supporting invocation of the extended limitation period. Interest and penalties were sustained in principle, subject to recomputation, and admissible CENVAT/MODVAT credit was left open for consideration on remand.</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=390134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>