<?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>2021 (9) TMI 36 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411691</link>
    <description>Clearances of excisable goods attracting nil rate of duty were held includible in the aggregate value of clearances for SSI exemption because the notification was treated as clear and unambiguous and covered all excisable goods for home consumption. Goods bearing another person&#039;s brand name were separately excluded, but nil-rate clearances were not treated as non-excisable. The Department&#039;s computation was upheld. On limitation, the Tribunal found suppression of material facts despite intimations and declarations, noting that the assessee had not obtained departmental clarification and had not established a bona fide belief sufficient to defeat extended limitation. The demand and related consequences were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2021 08:58:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 36 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411691</link>
      <description>Clearances of excisable goods attracting nil rate of duty were held includible in the aggregate value of clearances for SSI exemption because the notification was treated as clear and unambiguous and covered all excisable goods for home consumption. Goods bearing another person&#039;s brand name were separately excluded, but nil-rate clearances were not treated as non-excisable. The Department&#039;s computation was upheld. On limitation, the Tribunal found suppression of material facts despite intimations and declarations, noting that the assessee had not obtained departmental clarification and had not established a bona fide belief sufficient to defeat extended limitation. The demand and related consequences were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>